Adaptations and their Discontents

Whenever a popular book is turned into a movie, fans tend to debate the choices made, the actors who will play their favorite characters, what’s missing and just as often complain about all of those choices. Whenever a new Harry Potter movie comes out, another comic book is adapted to TV or a popular book like Da Vinci Code or anything by Tom Clancy, John Grisham or the late Ian Fleming is released an outpouring of opinions and critiques emerges on the Internet like a hermeneutic deconstruction that rivals Derrida, the multiple readings of The Canterbury Tales, or even the Bible. It was in this vein that I did the opposite, reading a book, Pay it Forward, a student of mine reviewed after having already seen the rather mediocre film a few years earlier. The student had made some rather innocuous comments about the differences that I found anything but innocuous. So I forged onward to take on the project from the opposite end. The book, like the movie, is in many ways average except in its message – which is uplifting without being completely saccharine or bathed in bathos. But three changes are made which appear to have clear political undertones. The first is that the teacher, Reuben (Kevin Spacey), moves from Black to White. Second, the original book has the teacher’s injuries occur in Vietnam, not from an abusive father. And finally, the lead character, Trevor (played by Haley Joel Osment), dies saving a gay boy who dresses as a women, not a little kid being bullied by local gang bangers.

In all three cases, there is a softening of most of the edge the original book did have. The story, for those who didn’t see it or read it, revolves around a boy who comes up for a project to change the world. Essentially, he will start by helping three people and rather than asking to be paid back, he asks that they “pay it forward” to three more. The idea is that the “payment” is something huge, not just a little favor and that it not be compensated at all. Trevor sets out to find three people to help and in the process starts a worldwide movement that dramatically changes the world. But the film alters the narrative in ways that undermine part of its ecumenical message. The first and most important change, in my mind, is getting rid of the Black teacher and replacing him with Spacey. This decision allows the moviemakers to avoid the contentiousness of a pretty white women actually dating, having sex with and marrying a Black man (in this case a Black man with injuries much worse than those portrayed in the film). Eschewing one of the biggest unspoken taboos in American society and eschews the potential to challenge that verboten mix and its radical potential in confronting racism.

The second change, taking out the literal and figurative scars of war is interesting, as Hollywood certainly is not afraid to take on this topic – but its absence here individualizes the narrative in a particular sense and arguably unravels its more radical statement on social interaction. Finally, is the less than surprising choice to eliminate the hot button topic of homosexuality. These three choices collectively challenge some of the more radical messages of the book, making the story in line with the Jesus savior narrative so common in American films and moving from a communal sense of social improvement to individual mettle and the ability to face the past and turn one’s life around. The film is not unredeemable, but could have done much more to offer a Utopian, counterhegemonic message – instead becoming a feel good film about individuals overcoming their past and building a new future inspired by a naïve but inspirational child with more wisdom than the adults who surround him (a increasingly common theme on TV and movies). To not end on a negative note, it is an admirable idea and one that could do a lot to change the world we live in today, so pay a favor forward some time and see how it feels . . . (B+ for the positive message (B- as a film))