‘Harold and the Purple Crayon’ Review: They Should Have Gone Back to the Drawing Board

As a seasoned movie buff who grew up in the golden age of children’s literature adaptations, I can’t help but feel a tinge of melancholy when yet another beloved book is butchered for the silver screen. The recent adaptation of “Harold and the Purple Crayon” is no exception to this trend.

As a child, I held a deep affection for the classic children’s book “Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang.” When I heard that a movie adaptation was being made, I eagerly anticipated it. Similar to the novel, the film followed a family with a father inventing a magical flying car, but beyond that point, they diverged significantly. The book had a unique tone, crafted by Ian Fleming, who is known for his cool, dry, and deadpan humor, but the movie was more like a sugary-sweet Disney knockoff.

Initially, there was a figure acting mischievously in the background, not the Child Catcher, but rather the executives from United Artists. These individuals were so keen on turning this book into a film that they reached an unusual conclusion – the book itself was subpar. They ended up dismantling Ian Fleming’s unique children’s story to fit it for the big screen. However, one must acknowledge their influence: They established a pattern, still prevalent today, for how most movie adaptations of children’s literature are produced.

Transform a well-known children’s book, extract its unique qualities, replace them with typical elements from commercial entertainment, and voila, you have a success (or that’s the idea). For every film like “Charlotte’s Web,” which is Gary Winick’s tender and authentic animated version of E.B. White’s barnyard classic, there are too many more like “Harriet the Spy,” which failed to capture her angst-ridden essence that made her memorable, or “Stuart Little,” which lost E.B. White’s melancholic tone in a machine of slapstick, or the disastrous spectacle of “Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat,” or the humorless comedy of “Mr. Popper’s Penguins”…the list continues.

To the list of children’s book adaptations that fail to capture the essence they aim for, we can now include “Harold and the Purple Crayon.” Originating from Crockett Johnson’s classic illustrative book published in 1955 (with several sequels following), the story revolves around a four-year-old boy named Harold, who has a big purple crayon that lets him draw whatever he envisions in mid-air. These drawings then come to life. In essence, Harold is like a young visual effects artist, and the movie adaptation of “Harold” primarily focuses on the special effects.

In this film, the main character, portrayed by Zachary Levi who will be discussed further later, initially exists as a cartoon figure in a world reminiscent of children’s books. However, after being left behind by his creator, he enters our reality, transforming into a fish-out-of-water comedy. This movie is similar to others where a real-world setting serves as the stage for animated characters like Garfield or Sonic. In this unique twist, instead of a specific character, the drawings that Harold creates become the characters themselves. Throughout the movie, Harold draws various items such as a spare tire, a bicycle, pies and ice cream, skateboards and roller skates, an airplane, a giant lock and wrecking ball (to break out of prison), a griffin, and a spider-fly with sharp teeth.

Young readers of “Harold and the Purple Crayon” might recognize some similar effects, but what truly set the book apart wasn’t merely Harold’s ability to draw whatever he wanted. Instead, it was the sense of wonder and curiosity, embodied by his wide-eyed actions, that made it extraordinary.

The movie “Harold” alters wide-eyed tropes with proven crowd-pleasing elements, commencing with the assumption that Zachary Levi’s portrayal as an adult-superhero-kid hybrid in the initial “Shazam!” would be ideal for Harold. However, contrary to his nuanced and subtle performance in “Shazam!”, here, donning what seems like the most peculiar Hawaiian shirt, Levi delivers a clumsy, enthusiastic, over-the-top portrayal of Harold. The characters accompanying Harold are two animal sidekicks, both of whom present themselves as humans: Moose, brought to life with energetic exuberance by Lil Rel Howery, and Porcupine, embodied by the fiery Tanya Reynolds in a vibrant purple mohawk, who deserves immediate consideration for a role in a Sinead O’Connor biopic.

In a filmmaking style reminiscent of his previous animation projects like “Rio” and the “Ice Age” series, director Carlos Saldanha meticulously crafts the narrative arcs penned by David Guion and Michael Handelman, making them seem as delicate as puppets. The story revolves around Harold, a seasoned character, who forms a bond with young Mel (Benjamin Bottani) and his single mother Terry (Zooey Deschanel), portraying a strong-willed, rational figure in an otherwise chaotic setting. Mel, who has lost his father, finds solace in imaginary friends. It is through Harold’s sketches that the filmmakers aim to bring back happiness into Mel’s life.

Harold embarks on a lengthy quest to find his enigmatic elderly man, an adventure that concludes somewhat sentimentally at Crockett Johnson’s residence. Additionally, there’s a villainous librarian (Jemaine Clement) who penned a fantasy novel mimicking Tolkien, titled “The Glaive of Gagaroh,” which is difficult to pronounce. If placed earlier in the movie, this element could have added more excitement. Unfortunately, “Harold and the Purple Crayon” sticks too closely to familiar patterns, lacking the necessary nostalgic pull. The movie concludes with a heavy-handed message about the importance of “imagination,” but the only thing the creators seem to be sketching with their purple crayon is code.

2024-07-31 16:17

‘Harold and the Purple Crayon’ Review: They Should Have Gone Back to the Drawing Board

Read More

Minority Mindset