The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar (2023)
September 27, 2023 12:44 AM - Subscribe
Faithfully adapted by filmmaker Wes Anderson from Roald Dahl's short story, this fantastical tale follows a rich man who masters a wondrous skill.
Netflix, as owner of the Roald Dahl corpus, has produced four short adaptations of his short stories by Wes Anderson: "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar," "Poison," "The Ratcatcher," and "The Swan." They will release one each day starting on 9/27. DiscussingFilm has an early review.
Netflix, as owner of the Roald Dahl corpus, has produced four short adaptations of his short stories by Wes Anderson: "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar," "Poison," "The Ratcatcher," and "The Swan." They will release one each day starting on 9/27. DiscussingFilm has an early review.
wenestvedt, I feel the same way. I loved Roald Dahl's children's books, and when I found out about his adult fiction I dove in so deeply. I think, in fact, this story collection was my introduction to that side of him.
I know all about how nasty a person he was (and in hindsight, you can see this and his adult themes shining through in his so-called children's books), but this at least is one place where I separate the art from the artist somewhat and still unabashedly love his work.
I had to look up "Poison" to remember which story that is. I agree with the disappointment in skipping "The Hitch-Hiker" in favor of that.
posted by cardioid at 6:47 AM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
I know all about how nasty a person he was (and in hindsight, you can see this and his adult themes shining through in his so-called children's books), but this at least is one place where I separate the art from the artist somewhat and still unabashedly love his work.
I had to look up "Poison" to remember which story that is. I agree with the disappointment in skipping "The Hitch-Hiker" in favor of that.
posted by cardioid at 6:47 AM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
I can't quite figure out why, but somehow Benedict Cumberbatch appearing in a Wes Anderson film just makes sense.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:12 AM on September 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:12 AM on September 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
Same, wenestvedt. I thought "The Hitch-hiker" would've been amazing to watch—I've never seen a finger-smith in action. Heh. (I also think "The Swan" is going to be rough watching.)
posted by bbrown at 8:04 AM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by bbrown at 8:04 AM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
"Poison" is a weird one. I remember reading it and thinking that there wasn't much there (and any subtext eluded me).
"Parson's Pleasure" would have been a great story (it's already been adapted a couple of times, but it's been a while). For those who might have read it, but don't recognize the title, it's about the shady antiques dealer who stumbles across a Chippendale commode and tricks the owners into selling it to him for next to nothing. As you might expect, he gets what he deserves, good and hard.
"Henry Sugar" was great. Even as a dumb kid I could tell that this story set up an expected path and then very deliberately didn't take it.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 9:01 AM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
"Parson's Pleasure" would have been a great story (it's already been adapted a couple of times, but it's been a while). For those who might have read it, but don't recognize the title, it's about the shady antiques dealer who stumbles across a Chippendale commode and tricks the owners into selling it to him for next to nothing. As you might expect, he gets what he deserves, good and hard.
"Henry Sugar" was great. Even as a dumb kid I could tell that this story set up an expected path and then very deliberately didn't take it.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 9:01 AM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
I didn't realize "Parson's Pleasure" had ever been adapted! That's a great one.
posted by cardioid at 9:20 AM on September 27, 2023
posted by cardioid at 9:20 AM on September 27, 2023
bbrown: I also think "The Swan" is going to be rough watching
Yeah, I can't figure out why Wes Anderson would want to film such a mean-spirited story at all.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:42 PM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I can't figure out why Wes Anderson would want to film such a mean-spirited story at all.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:42 PM on September 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Watched this last night with my kid and it was delightful. I find Wes Anderson twee in large doses but here with the theatricality of the sets and deadpan narration, it worked very well. I especially liked the wit of the mirrored stool used for levitation as a prop. How many of us also tried to stare into a candle after reading that story - little me certainly did!
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 6:01 PM on September 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 6:01 PM on September 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
Just watched it, it was lovely. Probably 2x more dialogue than a full-length feature film but delivered in a tight 40 minutes. Women completely absent from the main cast and Dahl is super problematic, but you can do a lot worse than a starting 5 of Cumberbatch/Kingsley/Fiennes/Ayoade/Patel. It's very Wes Anderson.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:44 AM on September 28, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:44 AM on September 28, 2023 [3 favorites]
MeFi’s resident Dahl nerd, checking in: I started watching this last night and only got a few minutes in before I had to stop and go grab books to compare. There are some fascinating differences right from the get-go! A few observations from the first 10 minutes or so…
Dahl’s writing hut looks pretty accurate. I was fortunate right to get a private visit in 2000, and the recreation is very good. The real one is a bit more cluttered and cramped, but they nailed it. I recognised the “Happy Birthday” sign behind him immediately.
I like the framing device of changing narrators (starting with Dahl) as a symbolic representation of the many layers of the story. Super effective.
The title page of the journal Sugar finds stopped me in my tracks immediately. In the original story, the name of the man who can see without his eyes is IMHRAT Khan, not Imdad. Why change the name? I haven’t seen any explanation online yet. The book version is also dated December 1934 from Bombay, as opposed to 1935 Calcutta.
But the biggest change is the doctor himself. In Dahl’s story, the journal is written by Dr. John F. Cartwright, presumably an Anglo person. The other doctors he’s hanging it with in the Doctor’s Rest Room were Drs. Marshall, Phillips, and Macfarlane. So Anderson has made the (correct IMO) choice to change this part to feature PoC instead. This is also the part where I recognised that the filmed dialogue - which feels like it’s the exact book text - isn’t quite. Even though there’s a lot there, it still removes some things - mostly for time, but also all of Cartwright’s references to “a native” or “The Indian” or descriptions of the colour of people’s skin. I think that’s the right choice here, as Henry Sugar isn’t really about racism or colonialism, and drawing attention to it doesn’t really add anything.
Also interesting to note that in the book, Imhrat Khan is “about 30” (which makes it more shocking what he drops dead the next morning). Casting Sir Ben Kingsley changes that quite a bit.
I still need to watch the rest of it, but MeFites may be interested to know that Henry Sugar was in fact based on a real person, a Pakistani mystic named Kuda Bux. Dahl wrote an essay about him (“The Amazing Eyes of Kuda Bux”) in 1952, and the 25 years later reprised large chunks of it for Henry Sugar. My site there goes into the many differences between the versions.
posted by web-goddess at 2:57 PM on September 28, 2023 [10 favorites]
Dahl’s writing hut looks pretty accurate. I was fortunate right to get a private visit in 2000, and the recreation is very good. The real one is a bit more cluttered and cramped, but they nailed it. I recognised the “Happy Birthday” sign behind him immediately.
I like the framing device of changing narrators (starting with Dahl) as a symbolic representation of the many layers of the story. Super effective.
The title page of the journal Sugar finds stopped me in my tracks immediately. In the original story, the name of the man who can see without his eyes is IMHRAT Khan, not Imdad. Why change the name? I haven’t seen any explanation online yet. The book version is also dated December 1934 from Bombay, as opposed to 1935 Calcutta.
But the biggest change is the doctor himself. In Dahl’s story, the journal is written by Dr. John F. Cartwright, presumably an Anglo person. The other doctors he’s hanging it with in the Doctor’s Rest Room were Drs. Marshall, Phillips, and Macfarlane. So Anderson has made the (correct IMO) choice to change this part to feature PoC instead. This is also the part where I recognised that the filmed dialogue - which feels like it’s the exact book text - isn’t quite. Even though there’s a lot there, it still removes some things - mostly for time, but also all of Cartwright’s references to “a native” or “The Indian” or descriptions of the colour of people’s skin. I think that’s the right choice here, as Henry Sugar isn’t really about racism or colonialism, and drawing attention to it doesn’t really add anything.
Also interesting to note that in the book, Imhrat Khan is “about 30” (which makes it more shocking what he drops dead the next morning). Casting Sir Ben Kingsley changes that quite a bit.
I still need to watch the rest of it, but MeFites may be interested to know that Henry Sugar was in fact based on a real person, a Pakistani mystic named Kuda Bux. Dahl wrote an essay about him (“The Amazing Eyes of Kuda Bux”) in 1952, and the 25 years later reprised large chunks of it for Henry Sugar. My site there goes into the many differences between the versions.
posted by web-goddess at 2:57 PM on September 28, 2023 [10 favorites]
In this interview, Anderson indicates that he stayed a fair amount of time at Gipsy House while working on Fantastic Mr. Fox.
posted by bbrown at 11:33 PM on September 28, 2023
posted by bbrown at 11:33 PM on September 28, 2023
But the biggest change is the doctor himself. In Dahl’s story, the journal is written by Dr. John F. Cartwright, presumably an Anglo person. The other doctors he’s hanging it with in the Doctor’s Rest Room were Drs. Marshall, Phillips, and Macfarlane. So Anderson has made the (correct IMO) choice to change this part to feature PoC instead. This is also the part where I recognised that the filmed dialogue - which feels like it’s the exact book text - isn’t quite. Even though there’s a lot there, it still removes some things - mostly for time, but also all of Cartwright’s references to “a native” or “The Indian” or descriptions of the colour of people’s skin. I think that’s the right choice here, as Henry Sugar isn’t really about racism or colonialism, and drawing attention to it doesn’t really add anything.
Hmm. Part of me is wondering if this isn't due to the recent editing of Dahl's work overall? That is absolutely the kind of language that's being edited out of his works.
Then again, I also notice that "Dr. Cartwright/Dr. Chatterjee" is played by Dev Patel, who's played two traditionally Anglo characters now without anyone freaking out about it, so it could also just have been Wes Anderson saying "screw it, I'mma work with who I wanna work with."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:34 AM on September 29, 2023
Hmm. Part of me is wondering if this isn't due to the recent editing of Dahl's work overall? That is absolutely the kind of language that's being edited out of his works.
Then again, I also notice that "Dr. Cartwright/Dr. Chatterjee" is played by Dev Patel, who's played two traditionally Anglo characters now without anyone freaking out about it, so it could also just have been Wes Anderson saying "screw it, I'mma work with who I wanna work with."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:34 AM on September 29, 2023
Netflix posted a behind-the-scenes blog entry. I found the set work to be the best part of the shorts, like when Dahl is standing in front of his writing hut and then the fence is brought in and the writing hut removed giving the appearance of movement without Dahl doing any whatsoever.
posted by bbrown at 11:54 AM on September 29, 2023
posted by bbrown at 11:54 AM on September 29, 2023
I just watched this, and I found it a fascinating adaptation. Somehow I was expecting something more like Fantastic Mr. Fox. Not with the expansion of the story, but more acted than told. But, of course, given the story-within-a-story nature, it makes a certain kind of sense.
It just feels almost like Wes Anderson is parodying himself in his one, and it makes me wonder about his annoyance that others are parodying him. That feels less like genuine annoyance and more like "how dare you get to it before I could?"
I'm interested in seeing what the other ones are like, but I'm going to bed instead of watching them straight away.
posted by cardioid at 7:26 PM on September 29, 2023
It just feels almost like Wes Anderson is parodying himself in his one, and it makes me wonder about his annoyance that others are parodying him. That feels less like genuine annoyance and more like "how dare you get to it before I could?"
I'm interested in seeing what the other ones are like, but I'm going to bed instead of watching them straight away.
posted by cardioid at 7:26 PM on September 29, 2023
The thing that's annoying about the parodies of Anderson is that the idiosyncrasies they're latching on to are, on the whole, jokes: They're appropriating his style of telling jokes and swapping in their own jokes that aren't, on the whole, as funny as Anderson's. For example: often the symmetry is used to point to an element that disrupts the symmetry, and that in itself is funny (depending on the specific context of the scene). The way it works is wrapped up in the composition, the script and (particularly) the editing, which has the timing of a good stand-up. Parodists don't get that, or if they do get it, they don't have the same skill: All they're doing is aping the style of a comedian and inserting their own, inferior, material. Impersonation is a hugely over-rated skill.
(I haven't seen this yet, saving it up for tonight. Hugely looking forward to it, as Anderson's work is like ice-cream for me, and the cast is great.)
posted by Grangousier at 4:01 AM on September 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
(I haven't seen this yet, saving it up for tonight. Hugely looking forward to it, as Anderson's work is like ice-cream for me, and the cast is great.)
posted by Grangousier at 4:01 AM on September 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
(Previous comment word salad. Sorry: Either too much coffee or not enough. There is only one way forward, and it involves hypercaffienation. EXCELSIOR!)
posted by Grangousier at 4:03 AM on September 30, 2023
posted by Grangousier at 4:03 AM on September 30, 2023
Having now watched all four, I found them really enjoyable. And though not a member of the Dahl fan-club particularly, his voice comes through especially strongly here - in (mostly) the best way.
As in the very best films, watching it I had the sense that all the actors were enjoying the hell out of themselves.
A real pleasure.
posted by From Bklyn at 7:47 AM on October 2, 2023
As in the very best films, watching it I had the sense that all the actors were enjoying the hell out of themselves.
A real pleasure.
posted by From Bklyn at 7:47 AM on October 2, 2023
This was fun! I have no comparison for the source material, but especially as a person who loves (and used to live in) live theatre, it was just a joy to watch.
posted by obfuscation at 5:39 AM on October 6, 2023
posted by obfuscation at 5:39 AM on October 6, 2023
Short documentary [SLYT] about the miniatures in the shorts.
posted by bbrown at 2:01 PM on October 6, 2023
posted by bbrown at 2:01 PM on October 6, 2023
Good review in The New Yorker.
Somehow this feels like a foregone conclusion.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:34 PM on October 6, 2023
Somehow this feels like a foregone conclusion.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:34 PM on October 6, 2023
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I will probably have to pass on "The Swan" and I don't know why they even filmed "Poison"; I am disappointed that they didn't make "The Hitch-Hiker" (from the same collection) into one of these short films instead of those two.
posted by wenestvedt at 5:49 AM on September 27, 2023 [3 favorites]