Article written by Rory Hawkins (literature) and Samuel Burnett (film).
Though nowhere as old as anything collected by the Brothers Grimm, Stardust is a quintessential fairy tale. It has evil witches, plotting princes, sky-pirates, a dangerous yet enchanting world and, of course, a bickering boy and girl that we all know will fall in love by the end.
It feels like you’re curling up under the blankets with an old favourite story. You always know how it’s going to end but the foreknowledge never bothers you.
But which Stardust are we talking about? There’s a book… and a movie. And although they share some characters and place names, they both pretty much stand on their own two feet. Think two siblings, but they look a little different and annoyingly never want the same thing.
Here at Paint the Town, you might’ve already noticed we have a nice selection of pretty, arts-based sections. But, aha, you say! What if there is a book… and a movie? Is one better than the other? Did they even get it right?
Pages to Pictures is our answer to those curveball questions.
I’m the Literature department’s Rory.
And I’m Sam, with the Film department. Together in Pages to Pictures, we’d like to take a look at both a book and movie of the same name, what they each do well, and if it’s a good adaptation to screen.
Rory:
Stardust - the book - was written by world-renown fantasy author, Neil Gaiman. Published in 1999 with illustrations by Charlie Vess, Gaiman wanted to try his hand at writing something different to his grittier dark fantasy and graphic novels.
Sam:
But whilst it’s supposed to be a subversive, adult take on the traditional fairy story formula, it still comes across as quite childish.
I’m not saying that you can’t have more allusions to sex, swearing or even just grounded character arcs, but don’t do it just for the sake of doing it.
Also, while the sex scene is no 50 Shades of Grey, it is still clearly enough to ensure it will never see the fluorescent lights of a school library.
Rory:
Oh, come on, this is Queensland! I’ll admit it’s obvious what’s happening but the one sex scene there is doesn’t go into graphic or literal detail.
I think Gaiman handles it quite poetically, so even for what it is it’s not distasteful. Compared to other works, I think Stardust is one of Gaiman’s most subdued pieces.
Sam:
A certain star also says “f**k.” Dude, it is not for kids. Even without the sex scene, that word alone gets it banned from school libraries.
Rory:
Okay, okay! So it’s not a book for the kiddies… but wasn’t that his intention?
Writing for The Guardian, Gaiman says that originally ‘children were not the primary audience [for fairytales], no more than they were the intended audience for Beowulf or the Odyssey.’
Only when adults were over their own folktales, were they retold as moralistic children’s stories. Stardust is Gaiman’s trying his hand at those “adult fairytales.”
The author’s narration takes the tone of a well-mannered Victorian, as he tells the story of ‘a young man who wished to gain his Heart’s Desire.’ From the beginning, he sets the tone of a romantic adventure centred around an unlikely hero searching for what matters most in life.
More mature (but not adult-alarm) themes do come to the fore as you read on: major characters aren’t one-role players, they make their own mistakes and can be morally ambiguous.
Equally, whilst Tristran (the book’s Tristan) and Yvaine travel through the kingdom of Stormhold, it’s only a small part of the Faerie Realm. Gaiman alludes to more mystery and magic - he only allows a small glimpse of whatever else hides in the dark.
Sam:
Stardust - the movie - was released in 2007 to positive reviews, though some critics bemoaned the fairytale trappings. English director Matthew Vaughan (of the Kingsman franchise) certainly gave a different spin on the franchise by upping the action and fleshing out the weird and wonderful cast. Vaughan and Gaiman had a previous collaboration, working together on an independent film.
While the plot is rather cookie cutter fantasy, the characters and the setting elevate this to so much more than the synopsis would have you believe.
Charlie Cox and Claire Danes (playing Tristan and Yvaine, respectively) are perfect for each other in this film, playing off each other so well that you soon forget that their characters only just met.
Other standouts include Mark Strong’s sociopathic Prince Septimus - so delightfully, so unsubtly ambitious and evil. He steals every scene he is in, even after his memorable death.
Rory:
But watching the film, you can see there’s still a massive shift in tone. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great, but I think this can be put down to Matthew Vaughan’s direction.
Before massive Hollywood success, Vaughan’s work was mainly in producing and directing English gangster movies, like Snatch and Layer Cake.
All his movies had this Tarantino-like contrast of brute violence and dry comedy. Both these movies had already attracted decent a cult following, and Vaughan’s name became synonymous with witty dialogue and character-focused fight scenes.
Sam:
Scenes such as the clash aboard the pirate ship. In the book, it never happened and frankly, the pirates themselves were barely a cameo on the page. Vaughan helped connect the various characters and story arcs more cohesively, squeezing just that little bit more character interaction from them.
In the novel, Septimus never even encounters Tristan nor affects the plot in any meaningful fashion (save his ultimate fate). Vaughan styles Mark Strong into the perfect anti-hero, a reflection of the protagonist.
Rory:
With every scene he’s in, you can feel Septimus getting closer to the protagonists and getting more menacing. In the end, you’re unsure of what he’s even going to do to them.
When they do finally meet, the audience feels that clash of personalities. If he’s not careful, everything could go wrong for Tristan.
Sam:
But Vaughan’s approach also adds a layer of comedy to the script. In fact, it seems that not one character can go five seconds without quipping against another. Yvaine’s: “Nothing says romance like the gift of a kidnapped injured woman” has to be my personal favourite.
Physical comedy also appears with many of the violent deaths coming across as slapstick. One memorable scene features the pirate crew butchering Septimus’ soldiers to the tune of the cancan, whilst unbeknownst of the situation Robert De Niro prances about in ballgowns, fanning himself with fluffy, pink feathers.
Rory:
Vaughan’s experience with gangster movies turns a menacing group of thugs into a crew of comic individuals. Like the rest of the cast, the dynamic between characters and actors is nothing short of fun.
Casting knew exactly what they were doing. They got all the right people to pull off the jokes that suited their characters the best. De Niro’s performance is the icing on the cake.
Sam:
For me, De Niro is the MVP of the film. Who else could be the crossdressing, lightning-catching pirate, Captain Shakespeare? I adore this guy, and there’s not many actors that pull off being outrageously campy one moment and deadpan ruthless the next.
Of course, few fairy tales work without a conniving villain - Michelle Pfeiffer fits the role like a glove. The deliciously vile Lamia is able to be both hilarious and terrifying whenever the situation calls for it.
It’s just a shame that she and De Niro never share the screen. Although maybe our minds would crack under the pressure of all that awesomeness.
But, as the saying goes: “there are no small parts, only small actors”.
Leads aside, there is not a single extra or side character not giving it their all here from the perpetually bemused Skinny Pirate (yes that’s his name) played by Dexter Fletcher to the bratty Victoria, played memorably by Sienna Miller.
And of course, there’s the scene when Tristan squares off against the aristocratic Humphrey (Henry Cavill). Yes, this actually happens in the movie!
Really. Well… more or less...
Rory:
Okay, so we’ve covered what the book and film are both like - even touched on some differences here and there. But what are they like in comparison? How does the Stardust movie stand as an adaption?
Sam:
In terms of how it works as an adaption, I actually think the author put it the best. Neil Gaiman said:
“I sort of feel like my grounding in comics was actually very useful because in my head, that's just the Earth-Two version of Stardust. It's a parallel Earth version of Stardust, which has Robert De Niro and stuff. And I get people who come to the book from having loved the movie who are really disappointed at some of the stuff that isn't there that Matthew brought.”
Basically, while there are differences (even some major, major differences), the two works are still both in the same area. While Gaiman created the setting and characters, Vaughan’s film direction proved that there was so much more to this wacky world.
While I do prefer the film over the novel, I do have to concede that the ending in the movie is quite rushed. It is literally a smash cut from Tristan picking up the ruby to being crowned king.
Rory:
The ending in the book makes more sense than the movie, but it has that melancholy to it that wouldn’t sit right after all the adventure. But the film ends all too quickly and I don’t think it serves the characters right either.
At the start of the film, Tristan tells Victoria that he wants to travel across the world - and although he does get a magical adventure and wins true love, I don’t think that makes sense for him to settle down at end.
Sure he’s won the day, but he’s still a long man - he should still want to travel, all the more now he’s got Yvaine as his companion. It makes sense for her as well: a star who’s only watched, gets the chance to do all the things she’s seen.
I would’ve liked to see the book’s ending given a warmer tone: the couple get married but before Tristan is crowned king, they set off on a honeymoon adventure aboard Captain Shakespeare’s vessel.
You’d get all the trimmings of a fairytale ending, but you can still hold on to the idea that Tristan and Yvaine are still out there, exploring the Faerie Realm.
Sam:
As for whichever one is better can only come down to your personal tastes. If you like a subversive, adult aimed fairy tale, the book is for you.
If, like me, you enjoy colourful characters, happy endings (and Mark Strong), check out the film.
I’m not going to tell you which one you should like, after reading all of this, you should probably know enough to tell which one would appeal to you. But, if somehow you have managed to avoid both versions, check them out and decide for yourself.
While I have always adored the film and been somewhat dismissive of the novel, looking back at both and seeing the similarities between the two has warmed me towards the latter.
Both works take place in this bizarre world of Stormhold and I will always go back to that world, regardless of medium.
Rory:
I on the other hand, won’t be so fluffy about it. Gaiman’s book is already very niche, even within his audience.
I read it years after seeing the movie and found myself a little disappointed - the princes had far less ‘page’-time, some plot threads felt a little loose.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Neil Gaiman’s work and with Stardust he’s accomplished something very few writers even try. But for a self-acclaimed fairytale some character movements felt too vague. Vaughan’s film direction shows that Stardust had more to offer.
Yes, the book is as Gaiman intended - an adult fairytale - but the movie opens up the concepts within Stardust for everyone to enjoy.
I mean, I remember seeing it on release when I was nine. The cinema was packed to the brim, and there wasn’t a person in the theatre who couldn’t stop laughing or wasn’t on the edge of their seat when the time came.
Whilst it’s still a lot more suggestive than anything Disney, the movie doesn’t cut anyone out of the fun.
Of the two, I think anyone should see Stardust THE FILM. Look at the popularity of The Princess Bride movie - I think it’s a safer bet that you’ll find the same attraction and be engrossed in what Vaughan weaves.
I still enjoy watching Stardust as much as I did when I first saw it, if not more.
We hope you enjoyed this week’s Pages to Pictures.
We’d both like to make this a consistent and long-running series; there’s plenty of book-adaptions and we’re never short of opinions. Share any of your own thoughts on novels and their films, and we might just cover them some day.
Comments