MovieChat Forums > The Little Princess (1939) Discussion > Why are the film adaptions so different ...

Why are the film adaptions so different from the book?

posted 18 years ago by hellotrouble
31 replies | jump to latest

I just read the BOOK "A Little Princess" and I was shocked to discover that in the book Sara doesn't find her father again and he really is dead. Maybe they want to make it "happier" since it's kind of a kid's movie? But the book has a pretty happy ending anyway. Anyway I'm surprised how many changes are made in both films. I haven't seen the 1939 film for forever, but I definently remember there was something about Sara meeting Queen Victoria (not in the book) and they change character's names too and add a lot of random characters. The 1995 version seems more faithful, except that Sara's father ends up being alive in that one too. I don't why they did this, the book was perfect the way it was.

[–] Kylecola 18 years ago

I had no idea it was so different.

I could imagine they changed it, because this was the time of World War 2, and the soldiers overseas, and the remainers at home, needed to continue to believe in positivity..

Making Victoria look good could be of the same reason..

[–] blakewright 18 years ago

I believe that in the book (I read it over 20 years ago) she ends up getting adopted by the school teacher that's banging the horse master (the one who goes to Africa).

They pay off her debt and they live happily ever after...

[–] dabrauer 18 years ago

I believe that there is a 1980's version (1986, perhaps?) that sticks very closely to the book.

[–] rickyfan3956 16 years ago

Yes, I own a version that sticks quite closely to the original plot of the book. I believe it was filmed by the BBC in the 1980's.

[–] CCsito 10 years ago

The BBC version (1973) supposedly followed the novel pretty closely (as stated by people who saw that version). So far, I cannot locate a video copy of this program. London Weekend Television produced a 1986 version of the novel which sticks closely to the overall plot. On PBS TV, the Wonderworks series included the London Weekend Television (LWT) version for its USA broadcast.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sunrise_md2000 17 years ago

Um, no.

In the book, she is adopted by her father's best friend, after four years of drudgery under Miss Minchin. Her father doesn't go to war; he dies of brain fever after thinking he has lost his fortune in bad speculation. There is no school teacher banging the horse master. The only other teacher is Miss Minchin's sister and a french professor.

This is the problem when good books are put through the meat grinder to be made into films. As enjoyable, in different ways, as all the "Princess" films have been, there hasn't really been one yet that actually communicated the whole theme and point of the book.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seychelles_2004 17 years ago

In the book, Becky becomes Sarah's personal maid. Sarah gets her from Miss Michin's. The book does not talk about Geoffrey or a grandfather. The only person is the Indian Gentleman that lives next door to the school and was a friend of Sarah's father. He is actually searching for Sarah and ends up caring for her.

[–] ceebeegee 13 years ago

No, Becky is an integral character in the book. Initially she is meant to evoke Sara's pity--Sara sneaks meat pies and other treats to her, and makes sure she gets a chance to rest in her room. Then when Sara is forced up into the attic, Becky can show her how to live, since Sara is completely unused to this way of life. She helps lessen Sara;s grief since they're prisoners in the Bastille together. Additionally, Becky is a lesson in perspective, as are many of the characters--Sara is constantly comparing her situation to others'. In the beginning she knows she is very lucky--lucky to be so rich obviously, but also to be so intelligent (compared to Ermengarde) and lucky to have a father who loves her so openly (again, compared to Ermengarde). As she says "it's just an accident that I am born the way I am and that you are born the way you are."

Later on, even in her misery, Sara knows she is still treated somewhat better than Becky, and when she first encounters Anne, it's clear that Anne is worse off even than Becky. Becky at least has a bed and a room--Anne is living on the streets. There's a whole gradation of privilege and luck in the story, constant checks on your perspective.

[–] booklover181 16 years ago

The 1986 version with Amelia Shankley as Sara was excellent, and very faithful to the book.

[–] CCsito 11 years ago

The 1986 London Weekend Television (LWT) version is more closer to the novel than the Shirley Temple and 1995 movie versions. There was also a 1973 BBC version that I have not seen. The Shirley Temple version replaced several characters and the ending among other things, but my main gripe with the movie is that the difficulties that Sara had to undergo after she became destitute were very weakly glossed over in this version. The Miss Minchin character did not come across as mean nor spiteful. And a central scene involving the waif that she meets out in the streets was left out of this version. The changes were probably made to make the film more suitable to a US audience of that time.

[–] katyrosefoster 8 years ago

this is IMDB, international MOVIE databas, so rate the movie and not the 'book that was so much better'. Especially since most people who'd watch something called 'the little princess' would be children. Kids dont give a crap about the book

[–] smith-684 14 years ago

That's just a horrible way of offering your opinion. It wasn't necessary to resort to vulgarity in referring to what is an innocent (yes, quite old-fashioned as well) but essentially a nice children's fairy tale of a story.

[–] AlanTeeW 13 years ago

The US didn't enter the war until over two years later.

[–] maggimae83 8 years ago

However, the book and the movie take place in England.

maggimae83

[–] possibility-girl 17 years ago

I watched 1995's version 3 time, then read book and then I watched this version. I adfore old movies, but I'm sorry to say I was quite disapointedf 'cause this one was changed so much. I can freely say 1995's version is one of greatest movies I saw and it only changed ending. This one (as fasr as I remember!) also added Rose, Lord Wickham, Geoffrey, Miss. Minchin's brother (instead of sister), Queen... This version didn't show Sara's stories, fary tales and imaginations, and that is point of book and thing I liked best in all! Sara wasn't sure her father was alive, she didn't go to hospitle, and her father was dead! This is beautiful movie on it's way, but it's nowhere near the book or other version... :(

Bette Davis: When I die, they'll probably auction off my false eyelashes.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sorrowfulkitten 17 years ago

It absolutley cracks me up how so many people can sit there and be so bitter about a movie made almost 70 years ago. Um, have you never read a book and then seen the movie? 90% of the time they screw with everything.
Yet, that is what Hollywood is known for. Someone read this book and decided to write a screenplay for it. The studio execs said hey, this would make a great movie for Temple. Her people sat down with their people and made HUGE red X's all through the script, and said change this, change this, and this, take this part out and make this happen. And whoever said it before was right, all they were into was happy endings because of the depression. Point is, there are many movies made that "shouldn't even have the same title of the book"---BUT THEY DO. So just smile and realize that hey, at least you have read the book and arent fooled into thinking this is the real story. If you are just now realizing this goes on, youre in for alot of rude awakenings.

Try reading the real version of Gone With The Wind.

Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness?

[–] MissMellieY 17 years ago

I agree with you. And in regard to Gone With The Wind, if they had actually filmed that book, it would have had to have been the 1939 version of the Lord of the Rings Triology. There was just too much in it to make one film without making changes and leaving things out.

I remember my mother saying that she was disappointed in the film because she read the book first and had always pictured Scarlett as the fiery redhead that Mitchell described. Vivien Leigh was definitely not a redhead. However, I think she was phenomenal.

As for The Little Princess, it just came at a time when happy endings were expected...and needed, to be honest. I have yet to see a movie based on a book that hasn't taken liberties...some more than others. In this case, HUGE liberties were taken but that doesn't make it any less a good story. I just look at those movies as being "the same title as" and don't even try to make it match the book.

"A man's kiss is his signature" -- Mae West

[–] jdeeq 15 years ago

Scarlett wasn't described as a redhead at all in the book. The Tarleton twins were the only ones described as redheaded

[–] MissMellieY 15 years ago

I suppose the fact that she was of Irish descent lends itself to thinking of her as a redhead!

"A man's kiss is his signature" -- Mae West

[–] ceebeegee 13 years ago

Yes, but Margaret Micthell was very clear about Scarlett's appearance--she was described many times as having dark hair and green eyes, the classic "Black Irish" look.

As the above poster says, the Tarleton twins, along with all of their siblings(4 sisters and 2 more brothers), also had red hair. Kind of like the Weaseleys, now that I think of it!

[–] gilmoregirl314 16 years ago

In the Little Princess book, her father doesn't even go off to war; he dies because of worrying about business troubles.
I haven't seen this version but I have seen the 1995 version, I love it, but it is completely different--the plot and characters only seem loosely based off of the original book...is this version more/less faithful to the book?

[–] tishtash03 14 years ago

the 1995 movie pretty much follows the same plot as the Shirley temple version. however the 1995 movie is a bit closer to the book than the Shirley temple version which adds characters.

[–] velcronewsletter 11 years ago

i wouldn't bother with this version, its terrible imo. shirley temple is completely unlike sara in the book (i find her revoltingly cheerful for the pensive and sometimes melancholy sara and she had very little depth that book sara had), they dragged in some extra scenes that have nothing to do with the story etc. i much preferred the 1995 version which stuck slightly more to the book apart from the ending where they escape over the plank and her father is found to be alive but it was still better than this one i think. the dancing scene with the soldiers at the hospital is just puke

----------------------------------------
OCOE - obsessive compulsive olive eater

[–] Agent-69 13 years ago

Because cinema and literature are VERY different mediums. Differences are not only expected but necessary if you want to make a good film.

"Flash, Flash, I love you, but we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth!"

[–] MJJslilgrl 11 years ago

Even though I'm a huge Shirley Temple fan, I have always said that this movie is a very poor adaptation of the book, but a good Shirley movie, if that makes sense. I look at this movie and the book (which I love) as two separate stories with the same title.

[–] tkech 10 years ago

@MJJslilgrl your post is dead-on right. I saw the 1939 version last week and it was a perfect Shirley Temple vehicle. Of course Hollywood followed its usual practice of distorting the original story; in those days they didn't give a darn about that!

I am a huge fan of both Temple and of Burnett.

Burnett's Sara Crewe character used her imagination to hold on to optimism, to stay alive without allowing real life misery to swamp her. Shirley's optimistic persona brought this to life!

[–] TheChamCham 9 years ago

Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, Poor Little Rich Girl, Little Miss Marker,Captain January, etc. If it stars Shirley Temple then the story will be tailored to feature Shirley's talents and characters will be added to surround her with studio contract players and their particular talents. Relax and enjoy !

Rescue the damsel in distress, whip the bad guy, save the world.

[–] maggimae83 8 years ago

I think the most egregious difference is that in the book, the Indian Gentleman is wealthy and is the one who transforms the garret that Sarah is living in. In the movie, he's the servant of the man next door. I read this book as a child in the 1940s and the magic of the transformation that took place in my imagination could never be equaled. And somehow, that it was done by the mysterious Indian made it even better.

maggimae83