Swallows and Amazons

How sad that someone's sensitivities (who's?) were considered so important that Titania's original name was changed to 'Tatty' for this film. The character's name is Titty, and has been since 1930 - a very long time - and I consider that the producers should be ashamed of themselves for giving in on such an insignificant matter. Do they not know the expression 'to Roger someone'? Do they not know what a 'John' is in certain societies? Where does all this lunacy stop?

Perhaps the film lacks the intensity of modern, CGI, 'shoot 'em up' films, but the pleasure should lie in the bucolic idealism that Ransome illustrated in all his books. Oh, and the basics of how to sail, alongside other matters naval and historical. Fortunately interest in such activities remains high and will probably remain so for the next few centuries, unlike passing fads passed off as 'entertainment' but actually merely being another vehicle for profit.

Not one to casually chuck out the "Childhood ruined" meme, but it is hard not to take the butchering of a treasured childhood story personally.

In fairness, you can see the thought process behind the production decisions. The renaming of Titty is a meeting I feel like I was present for it, is so easy to visualise. The addition of the international intrigue angle adds drama, and you can see a producer demanding it: "you want to make a movie where a bunch of wholesome middle class white kids sail round a lake for a week and then have a tea party? Where is the action? Where is the tension?" I can imagine the script writer going back to the source and coming across Arthur Ransome's Russian connections on wikipedia and having a lightbulb moment that powers them through a midnight rewrite session.

All this I feel could have been forgiven, and even set a little differently to a much better result: The movie could have been somewhat more meta: with the spy plot line going on in the background and the children oblivious to it. Its actually possible to re-read the events of the book as exactly this, with Uncle Jim's various activities made ambiguous, yet the events as perceived by the children remain untouched. This could have added that layer that a scene by scene retelling of the book would have needed to make it compelling on screen, but would have retained the original's charm.

The unforgivable sin of this movie is the degradation of the characters. Not one seems un-touched by a 21st century cynicism: All the adults are hostile, with the generational dynamic speaking more to that between baby boomers and millennials than the values of the 1930s.

The Blacketts have none of that self aware joie-de-vivre. In the books, Nancy is full of bluster, but always reconsiders when about to behave unwisely. In the movie she comes off as casually abusive, hostile and borderline a bully, becoming an ally to the Walkers in the final act with no apparent resolution to the earlier tensions.

The Walkers grieve me the most. They bicker and are incompetent, when in the books they are committed to performing practical tasks of camping and sailing diligently, capably and considerately, always eager to absorb more knowledge and skills and consumed by the learning of their crafts. This was such an inspiration to me as a child, and to see such fundamental carelessness from these loved characters truly grieves. John is abusive and a poor leader, written so purely to set up drama and conflict. Thrown by the wayside is his simple decency from the books, as well as the most interesting struggles with the expectations of his absent father.

I don't want to be unfair to the child-actors, but their performance is frequently painfully wooden, which I'd actually lay at the feet of the direction rather than the actors as even the adult leads fail to shine. Andrew Scott in particular is interesting to contrast with his role as Moriarty in Sherlock, where he is compelling every moment he appears.

For the most part the child actors are debuting in the film. I hope it doesn't stand as a black mark against their futures. In particular Dane Hughes (John) has to be given credit: I might hate the script, character notes and direction he was given, but he gives it his all and adds some believable nuance to his scenes that spoke to me even while I was hating the movie. Teddy-Rose Malleson-Allen (Tatty) also shines: her performance is easy and natural, and overcomes what should be the cringe factor of several of her lines by a number of notches with an innocent charm. Overall poor then. To be sure the source material being very difficult to simply translate directly to the screen is a hard starting place, but several bad decisions compound things, many of them being common irritating features of contemporary film making in needing to add tension and action. I feel as a fan of the source material that a good movie, retaining the innocence and themes of competence, duty and loyalty, is out there if better choices were to be made. Additions to fit the screen medium are of course necessary, but not these additions. Sadly I fear we may not see another attempt to make it work for another 43 years.

It takes guts to remake a classic film. Unfortunately it takes talent too, and from the "writer" downwards the bunch behind this particular remake are sadly lacking in talent.

Honestly, it makes you wonder if they ever read the original stories. Sure, they're perhaps a little dated now, but I'm convinced it would have been possible to update them without ignoring everything that was good. They certainly did *not* need to rename poor old itty, or make the teenagers a bunch of inept yobs.

Ignore this, go watch the original 1974 version, then hunt out Sophie Neville's beautiful diaries of "The Making of Swallows and Amazons" (it's on Amazon) and let the love and respect for Arthur Ransome's work envelop you.

The makers of this rather odd film don't seem to have been able to make up their minds whether they were doing Swallows and Amazons or The Thirty Nine Steps, and so have gone for a rather awkward blending of the two. Clearly they don't think that Ransome's gentle story of a boating holiday in the Lake District is exciting enough for modern audiences, and they may be right. So on the train on the way to the lake District we get Sinister Spies erupting into the Walker children's compartment (mother has gone outside for a smoke) and one of them (Uncle Jim no less) ends up climbing about on the outside of the train and jumping off. Uncle Jim is in fact the world's worst spy ever. He leaves secret papers and photos lying about in the cabin of his boat in plain view, and doesn't even bother to lock the door when he goes out. He does everything to draw attention to himself except wearing a hat with 'Spy' on it. There is still room for some boating and camping on the island, and when the film stick to what is actually in the book it isn't bad, but the spy stuff weighs the film down, and gets steadily more absurd as the film goes on, culminating in a scene of such joyous absurdity i was reduced to tears of laughter. As a film of Swallows and Amazons this is badly flawed, but is worth 5 out of 10 for making me laugh so much.

British TV movie and mini series director Philippa Lowthorpe, films an adaptation of Arthur Ransome's popular children's book series 'Swallows and Amazons' set on a fictional lake but inspired on the Lake District and the Norfolk Boards. Admittedly, I haven't read the novels so it's hard for me to comment on the adaptation but it's a cute children's adventure with bravery, drama and some sibling rivalry.

We follow a cast of young unknowns, the Walkers, which are similar to the children from Narnia or the Famous Five; typically British for that era going camping, fishing and sailing that brought me back to my childhood of secret base building and wading in the local stream looking for sticklebacks.

The names we should recognise are Kelly Macdonald and Rafe Spall, with an up and coming Andrew Scott. Kelly playing the encouraging, free-spirited mother and Rafe playing a suspicious and mostly obnoxious character who's obviously got something to hide. But the kids steal the show, and rightly so, it's about them after all and they do a grand job especially the emotional and excitable Roger played by Bobby McCulloch. Have to mention Brit comedian Harry Enfield who plays Mr. Jackson which was a surprise to me but a delight in any case.

The scenery is lush and makes you proud of the British countryside which makes me wonder if people from the rest of the world see all this green and think "wow, that looks so beautiful." There's a great score from Ilan Eshkeri, (Stardust, The Young Victoria) that's enchanting and very fitting for the children's adventure adding dramatic effect and suspense.

It feels longer than the 97min running time and wavered slightly in the what felt like the middle of the story. I can imagine there was a lot of ground to cover and possibly a challenge to fit everything into the film, not that any part felt rush. It's well shot with some great camera work and is some light-hearted entertainment for the whole family, however it isn't a grand spectacle but then again I don't think it tries to be.

Running Time: 6 The Cast: 8 Performance: 7 Direction: 8 Story: 7 Script: 7 Creativity: 6 Soundtrack: 8 Job Description: 7 The Extra Bonus Points: 0

64% 6/10