Why I Like Roald Dahl Movie Adaptations the Best

Scene from The BFG

This Friday marks the release of the latest film from Steven Spielberg called The BFG, or The Big Friendly Giant. While it is exciting to see the director return to the world of children's cinema after heavy dramas like Lincoln and Bridge of Spies, it is also a moment where I get to admit one thing: I think that Roald Dahl has the best track record for cinema adaptations to date. I'm not saying he's perfect, but I cannot help but imagine what childhood would be if I didn't have his work vicariously exposed to me in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or James and the Giant Peach. To me, seeing his name in the credits is worth admission. If nothing else, I should explain why that is. You see, his stories are so full of wonder and creativity that it's almost beneficial to children.

Before one could explain the magic of the movies, one must understand why Dahl resonates. For starters, his prose is hyperbolic and full of wonderment. If you read "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," you will find a whole lot of exclamation points to emphasize the joy that's found in every character. Even the details of the morose characters have a liveliness to them that makes the book pop. It also helps that the world is so full of potential, and from the perspective of children, that it only makes it easier to see what kids would see in them. It's about traveling in great glass elevators and finding eccentric adults to relate to. To say the least, there's enough there that it almost speaks directly to the reader as a personal friend, wanting to keep them entertained on a boring and lonely night.

Now comes the part where I explain Dahl's appeal to cinema. Much like Disney, it feels important to have a formula that appeals to kids without being obvious. Speaking as Dahl was often an eccentric writer, it makes sense that he would take a dive into film making - specifically with a co-writing credit on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which is a creative and wondrous look at a flying car. Of course, that's not based on Dahl's work (it actually comes from James Bond creator Ian Fleming's book). Still, the collaboration is a distillation of the energy that one can expect when experiencing a good director bringing Dahl's work to life.

In interviews for The BFG, Spielberg has even mentioned his excitement for adapting the story to screen. He read it to his children, and believed that the technology needed to catch up with the source material. This is arguably true if one wants to do faithful adaptations of his work. After all, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" features a great glass elevator that goes any and all directions. The 70's version by director Mel Stuart has said elevator, but it is reduced to a few minutes at the end of the film. Director Tim Burton's slightly more faithful adaptation makes better use of it thanks in large part to computer animation and the ability to do anything. Based on the trailers alone, The BFG looks impressive in the balance of "giant" and "regular" characters that wasn't possible outside of animated films even at the start of Spielberg's career. While there's some fun in making animated films of Dahl's work, it's even more marvelous to bring to the real world.

One of the few to merge the two styles was James and the Giant Peach. Again, there was a fantastical element that brought the story into a curious and exciting forefront. The story starts as an abused boy who finds a peach that won't stop growing. He goes for an adventure inside of it, eventually landing the giant peach in The Big Apple (New York). It's a whimsical note, and one that Dahl was exceptional at. What's more impressive is that it balances the two styles by depicting reality (live action) outside of the peach, and depicts the fantastical (stop motion animation) inside of the peach. Add a few song numbers and a colorful cast of supporting characters and you have one of the more ambitious and bizarre Dahl adaptations. Thankfully it keeps plenty of wonder and creativity that not only reflects strong writing, but what ambitious cinema could be.

Of the many adaptations, the most universally beloved is likely Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, if for no other reason than that it inspired a real life candy brand and Gene Wilder's interpretation has lead to a popular meme. It's full of great song and turns the mundane task of candy making into its own iconic and childlike universe. Even the peril of children being potentially killed is given levity and entertainment value throughout the film in ways that are unassuming. If nothing else, it may be one of Dahl's strongest largely because of how it explores a cross section of consumer culture and does a vague analysis of their downfalls in relation to big business. It may not be the most preachy, but it does come with the catchiest moral songs of its kind.

What is probably the best advantage of Dahl is that his work can be adapted to almost any style of film. Much like James and the Giant Peach, the most recent successful adaptation was stop motion animation. It was Fantastic Mr. Fox, which remains one of director Wes Anderson's only adapted stories and plays perfectly into his family dynamic style of story telling. It has a painstaking indie chic to it that may turn some off, but it creates one of the best animated films of the decade, and does so while infusing various cinematic references and styles. It is dark, but it is also whimsical in ways that are unassuming. It is an Anderson film through and through, but it's also essentially a Dahl film at heart. The fact that both Anderson and Burton are capable of making Dahl's work succeed is itself a testament to the craft. 

So, why does having the text "Based on a work by Roald Dahl" fill me with confidence? The answer is simple. He was an author whose work is great on the page, but inspires filmmakers to try and bring it to life in exciting ways. Spielberg's approach already looks good thanks to technological advances. Stuart's approach worked because of clever casting. Anderson's worked because it was a strong cross section of content and creator. To say that you could make a dull Dahl adaptation is speculative. It could be bad, but it's hard to see a writer whose work is so eccentric and appealing fail on at the very least an impulse level. It is generally why he is crucial to good cinema, and why his name fills me with confidence, even if the other names on the tin don't.