Last night was opening night of the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, and the opener was a big one — the US premier of the animated adaptation of THE LITTLE PRINCE. Director Mark Osborne (KUNG FU PANDA), was there, along with his son Riley, who voiced the prince. Also in attendance were Santa Barbara resident Jeff Bridges, who effectively narrates the film as the Aviator, and Mackenzie Foy, who plays a new character just called The Little Girl. The movie is loaded with star-studded voice talent, including Rachel McAdams, Paul Rudd, James Franco, Marion Cotillard, Benicio del Toro, Paul Giamatti, Ricky Gervais, and Albert Brooks.
Of course the illustrated 1943 book THE LITTLE PRINCE, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, is a classic. It is one of the best-selling books every published, and has been translated into more than 250 languages. It tells the magical story of a boy who lives on an asteroid, B-612, and travels amongst the stars with a flock of birds. Ultimately he befriends a sentient rose, a talking fox, and an Aviator stranded in the desert. It is a beautiful allegory about human relationships, childhood imagination and loss, based on Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s own experiences being exiled during Wold War II.
There are two big problems with turning this story into an animated feature. One, the original novella is too short to run at feature length. Two, it is such a beloved classic that you can’t just pad out the story by introducing new characters or adventures in that universe. The film solves this by introducing a frame story. A girl and her mom move into a new house, and it happens to be next door to The Aviator from the book, now an old man trying to get his airplane running again. He tells the story of of the book to the little girl, in episodes, as she visits him during the summer while evading the overly structured schedule her working single mother has put on her. Since we get to find out what happened to some characters after the original book, in some sense this is both a retelling of THE LITTLE PRINCE, while simultaneously serving as a sequel.
The film tries to reverently honor the original look of the book, while brining other aspects into the modern age. The modern-day story is rendered with CG animation, while the book flashbacks are beautifully stop-motion animated to look like the source illustrations. The old man even draws out pages that look like the original book and gives them to the girl.
THE LITTLE PRINCE is entertaining, and at times magical. However, it never has more than flashes of greatness. The frame story for the most part looks like any generic modern-day animation, and that part of the story is similarly by-the-numbers. When we are introduced to the mom who over-structures her kid’s day, we know that the little girl is going to escape into the opposite world of whimsey and fantasy. When two characters have a fight, we know that this is just a setup for a climactic resolution. This all stands in stark contrast to the original. It is such a classic precisely because it is so out-of-left field. If it is your first time reading THE LITTLE PRINCE, I challenge you to predict what’s going to happen next. It seems like a kids book, yet it has very adult themes. You think it is going to be a happy, whimsical fantasy, and yet it is bittersweet. The rules of logic and our universe do not apply, and it is this children’s thinking that makes it so beguiling. The characters confound your expectations in a profound way at every turn.
I think one reason the original can work in this way, because it is a work of unique, solitary genius. Modern animated movies are made by committee, and represent investments of tens of millions of dollars. Anything truly weird is gong to get sanded down until it is the most broadly palatable thing for the masses. Character arcs are so honed that they are predictable. This isn’t to say that this kind of process can’t work. Look at Pixar. They have a big team, but they nearly always find the magic in their story, even if it means firing the director and starting over. THE LITTLE PRINCE feels like the first draft of a Pixar movie. All the pieces are there, and there’s plenty of good stuff, but it hasn’t quite come together to be pure magic yet.
Where THE LITTLE PRINCE does shine is in the representation of the source material. It looks incredible — both true to the book, and yet better than that ever looked. The in those segments tone there is also consistent — an almost mystical trance-like state of wonder. And just like in the book, the fox steals the show with his Yoda-like pronouncements of the state of things.
Compare this to the frame story though — the tone there is inconsistent and doesn’t match with the flashbacks. It isn’t really going for comedy, and yet there is sort of an exaggerated, almost slapstick feel. Nor do the characters really shine or surprise you, despite solid voice performances all around. And the frame story takes a while to get going, and drags in parts.
None of this should be taken as too serious a criticism of the director Mark Osborne though. I like what he set out to do, and mostly achieved. But in adapting such a revered book, he basically set himself up for something of a let down. No matter how good this film is, it is inevitable going to be compared to the classic source. In some ways, it reminds me of Peter Jackson’s Kong remake. There are plenty of great moments, and it is fun to watch. It brings a classic up to modern sensibilities. But somehow in the process it looses some of the magic.
