SO MANY things wrong with this! ---I understand that having Captain Crewe serve in the Great War was probably considered more cinematic than diamond mines and "brain fever". But I despise any story where someone "dead" turns up again. That's a terrible thing for children to see, especially if they've already lost a loved one; they don't need that false hope.
Furthermore, this change eliminates more dramatic tension than it creates. When someone goes off to war, you *know* there's a good chance they may die. I prefer the book's turning point: first, the too-good-to-be-true diamond mines; then Barrow's arrival to report that Crewe "died delirious...and didn't leave a penny." And because we lose this, we also lose the parallel, and heartbreaking, storyline about Carrisford searching for Sara everywhere except where she actually is.
And Sara's hysterics when she meets her father again are inexcusable. Burnett's Sara would never have taken on so.
---Sara, not her father, was the one who came up with the theory about dolls having secret lives. She's the one with the active imagination, after all! It would have played much more effectively to have her explain this to him, and have him further torn apart by the realization that he's really going to miss this charming little girl.
---I'm not criticizing Liesel Matthews' acting, since she was okay for the role *as written* (just that it was written wrong!), but she LOOKED wrong for the character! Burnett constantly referenced Sara's BLACK hair, pale skin, and big eyes. Because she made so much of this, I would say that casting someone with those attributes is crucial.
---In the book, Ermengarde was fat, and slow, but also pretty. In those days, being "plump" was no impediment to beauty, and, then as now, beauty and intelligence were often seen as mutually exclusive.
---Did the French teacher have to be such a caricature? He looks like Asterix, for heaven's sake! Also, Matthews doesn't sound as if she's been speaking French all her life; surprising, considering her background.
---Becky does not have to be black in order to illustrate that she's "below" the other girls. In the book, she talked cockney: that was enough of a difference. Dividing lines between the classes were sharp enough without bringing race into it. Also, a scullery maid would not have been serving at table, or doing anything "visible".
---And we shouldn't see the garret before Sara goes to live there. That's the turning point, and the difference between the two settings should be as jarring to the audience as it is to her.
---And Sara giving Becky new shoes?! How's she gonna explain that?!
---Also, I don't like the identical uniforms. Pre-crisis Sara always had the best of everything, including clothes that were much more grand even than those of the other rich little girls.
---I wish they hadn't eliminated the character of Jessie, Lavinia's sycophant. In the book, it's through their conversations that we get to know what's in Lavinia's beady little mind. Dipping hair in inkwells is good visual shorthand, but Burnett's Lavinia was too ladylike for such antics.
---Likewise, Sara would never have taken a cheap shot like calling Lavinia a "snotty two-faced bully". She NEVER rose to her bait; that was a key facet of the "princess" persona. She was motherly towards Lottie, and kind to everyone. The film Sara is just too snippy, almost asking to be knocked off her pedestal.
---Miss Minchin wasn't nasty to Sara until she lost her fortune. As long as Sara was a "show pupil", she could do no wrong. In fact, on Sara's fateful birthday, Minchin called her "dear Sara", and reprimanded Lavinia for snorting at this. But when Minchin ceased to have anything to gain by being nice to her, she ceased to do so.
---In general, the school was not a house of repression; not for the regular pupils, anyway. They all had wealthy, well-connected parents, and Minchin would have heard about it if they'd been unhappy.
---Many of the post-crisis scenes were undercut. Sara had to "put her pride in her pocket" when the little boy offered her money; that should have been played up. She used to give handouts to the poor; now she herself was being patronized. And sharing the pastry with the other little girl was, in the book, a huge sacrifice. Being a princess, she couldn't turn her back on another's suffering. And both these things happened after she'd been beat down for a while, not right off the bat.
---I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the dancing-in-the-snow scene.
---And FORGET the soot-down-the-chimney prank. Sara would have been beaten for that, not just made to wash dishes. As a servant, she was subjected to downright abuse. She didn't get regular meals, for instance. When Minchin told her she would get no meals the *next* day, that was after she'd had no dinner or supper *that* day. She also had to take a lot of guff from the cook, another character I'm sorry they left out.
---They just took all the bite out of it. Scenes like retrieving the locket (which did not exist in the book!) and Amelia's romance with the milkman are okay for what they are, but poor substitutes for the much more powerful scenes mentioned above. And, in the book, the other girls did not rally around Sara as they did in the film. Except for Ermengarde and Lottie, and, in her nasty way, Lavinia, they mostly forgot about her.
---And the last act is ridiculously overwrought. In the book, Minchin softened up again when Sara started getting "donations", because she assumed this mysterious benefactor could make trouble if they knew how she'd been treating Sara. Putting Sara in peril is a trite cop-out.
---And I don't believe she could have pulled herself up onto that ledge anyway.
---And Minchin being reduced to servitude is just stupid.