The debate surrounding book-to-film adaptations often generates heated discussions, particularly regarding the relevance of the source material in film critique. While purists may take issue with any deviations from the original text, it’s important to recognize that adaptations must stand on their own merits. However, the difficulty often lies in the choices made during the adaptation process.
This brings us to “The Thing with Feathers,” the latest film based on Max Porter’s acclaimed 2015 novel, “Grief is the Thing with Feathers.” Directed by Dylan Southern and featuring Benedict Cumberbatch as a grieving widower, the film explores themes of loss and parenthood through the haunting presence of a giant crow that enters the family’s life. The original novel poignantly navigates grief’s complexities, with the crow either offering healing or taunting the family, a dichotomy that adds depth to the narrative. Porter drew inspiration from his personal experience, having lost his father at a young age, an element that resonates deeply in his work.
The book previously inspired a staging in 2019, adapted by Enda Walsh, featuring Cillian Murphy. Walsh’s adaptation was praised for its fidelity to the emotional core of the story, but Southern opted to create his own version without Walsh’s influence. Instead of maintaining the thematic link to Ted Hughes’ poetry collection “Crow,” Southern takes an approach that leans heavily into horror tropes, utilizing jump scares and stylistic choices that detract from the novel’s poetic essence.
Despite the criticisms about the adaptation choices, the film benefits from strong performances by Cumberbatch and the young actors, Richard and Henry Boxall, who effectively convey the emotional struggle of a family coping with loss. The visual elements of the film, crafted by cinematographer Ben Fordesman, add a distinct atmosphere, using shadows that create a sense of foreboding as the crow looms large over the characters. However, the design of the crow itself, shaped by Nicola Hicks, evokes unfortunate comparisons to “The Babadook,” a film that successfully fused horror with a profound metaphor about mental illness.
One of the most significant shortcomings in “The Thing with Feathers” is the unresolved question of the crow’s significance within the narrative. Porter’s novel intricately ties the crow to the father’s scholarly pursuits regarding Hughes’ poetry, a connection that not only grounds the story but also enriches its emotional weight. By neglecting this integral aspect, the film surrenders its potential depth, leaving the crow as an inexplicable presence rather than a meaningful symbol.
In the novel, the crow articulates its many roles in the family’s life, underscoring its thematic importance. By stripping away the academic context and transforming the father’s character into a graphic novelist, the film dilutes the story’s resonance and loses the ability to explore grief in a nuanced manner.
Overall, while “The Thing with Feathers” showcases commendable performances and striking visuals, the deviation from the source material’s core themes hampers its impact. As audiences continue to seek adaptations that honor their literary predecessors while offering fresh interpretations, the challenge remains to strike a balance that retains the original material’s depth and emotion. In the end, a well-executed adaptation can serve as both a homage and a new artistic exploration of the themes that resonate with viewers.