All About television
How Not to Adapt "Anne of Green Gables"
How Not to Adapt "Anne of Green Gables"
In 1985, Kevin Sullivan's screen adaptation of Lucy Maud Montgomery's beloved 1908 novel, "Anne of Green Gables," reawakened the story for a new generation. The production, visually stunning and emotionally tender, showcases the beauty of Prince Edward Island, where Anne (Megan Follows), an orphan, is taken in by the aging siblings Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert (Richard Farnsworth and Colleen Dewhurst).
newyorker.com
Note that there are some light spoilers from the pilot episode in this article.




[Content deleted by author]
Heh, that quote is ridiculous! Of course, people who love Anne (or any book) will know what's in it. This reminds me of Demi Moore's awful adaptation of the Scarlet Letter. In some interview she said the controversial "new" ending was the one she thought Nathaniel Hawthorne "would have wanted." ER WAT?
I'm good with people taking artistic license, but let's not pretend no one can tell. (Poor Demi. I wonder if she thinks back to that quote and blushes.)
THAT SAID. I grew up with Megan Follows' Anne and I loved her. Farnsworth and Dewhurst were both so dear to me, and nothing I've read about this new series makes me think it won't be anything but jarring. But I also had an email from a friend in her early 20s who was completely moved by the new Anne. I know my friend to be extremely thoughtful and not easily swept away by pop culture, so perhaps this adaptation speaks to her (and, by extension, a different generation) in a way I might not completely get. So I'm not going to watch it, but my mind's open. I'm happy if someone finds the same kind of connection to the "new" Anne as I did to the "old" one.
I grew up watching the Follows version too, and I think there's a lot to be said for having grown up with that version--which I agree with this article's writer is superior. Your friend didn't grow up with it (obviously). Has she seen it at all? She might feel differently about the new version if she did (though perhaps not, as nostalgia probably is coming into play a bit here).
Gah, I still can't think of Matthew and the mutton-sleeve dress without choking up. I've avoided the new one bc I don't think I could see it without bringing a boatload of expectations. But also, maybe it's just not my language.
I was having a conversation with someone significantly older than I who said the Baz Luhrmann adaptation of Romeo and Juliet was superficial and silly. I laughed, bc for me, in the 90s, I was at just the right age (I think) for that movie to feel important and real.
To answer your question, I suspect she's seen the Sullivan version (because Canada, heh) but I know she's read the books. She said the new one "deviates a lot from the original storylines" but that it's "incredibly beautiful and nuanced." So all I can think is there has to be something there.
[Content deleted by author]
I agree with your feelings about remakes. So much of creativity is reusing old frames to explore new ideas. In some ways, having that context helps us recognise what's changed. Plus, I remember a story a while ago about how there are only six basic plotlines that all stories follow... Thus suggesting even the stories that aren't remakes will be remakes, haha.
Certain things resonate with us at certain times, and it's so subjective and relative. And really, there are so many things in this world to dislike, I have a hard time mustering up judgement of someone finding joy in something (as long as it doesn't negatively affect others) just bc I don't get it.
Except for adaptations of P&P. Clearly the BBC series is the definitive and superior version, now and forever. ☺