In both professional and amateur reviews of literary works of fiction, it's often said that the best of them feature characters who seem so real they nearly leap off the page. That's a high compliment indeed, but what if said writing creations did just that and ended up arriving in your presence as flesh and blood beings?
That was the beginning premise of Cornelia Funke's first literary installment of the Inkworld trilogy, 2003's "Inkheart," and that work has now been brought to the big screen with the same title. Fairly imaginative and action-filled, but beset by a few rules problems and not quite taking full advantage of its "anything goes" scenario, the film is nevertheless a fairly enjoyable and entertaining ride.
Harking back to my screenwriting/playwriting classes in college, I recall a pivotal piece of creative advice bestowed upon us by our wise professor: You can create any array characters in whatever world you choose, but the rules of said universe must be clear, not only to the characters, but also the eventual readers of said work.
Having not read Funke's first or subsequent follow-up novels, I can't attest about whether said rules are present, but in this film, they aren't clearly defined. What we know is that certain people labeled as "silver tongues" have the ability -- when reading aloud from a published novel -- to somehow magically transport characters, creatures, inanimate objects or even forces of nature from the written page to the real world. And when that happens, someone in the presence of the reader is sent the other way and ends up in the storyline of said book.
Here, that involves bookbinder Mo (Brendan Fraser in his usual unintentional action/adventure hero mode) who initially isn't aware of his power and inadvertently causes the fire handler character Dustfinger (a good Paul Bettany) to cross over from his role in the book "Inkheart." But said magic also sends Mo's wife (Sienna Guillory) in the opposite direction.
Now, a decade later, he, with his teenage daughter (Eliza Hope Bennett) in tow, is perpetually in search of another copy of that book in hopes that he can bring his wife back. That results in them encountering a variety of characters and much adventure, but those pesky rules issues might just bother more discerning viewers.
For instance, we later learn that two villains from the book (Andy Serkis, no longer just a stunt model for special effects work in the likes of "The Lord of the Rings" and "King Kong," along with Jamie Foreman as his number one henchman) also crossed over in the initial switcheroo. But we don't know if anyone or anything was traded for them, thus raising the question of how this is governed.
It doesn't seem likely that it's always a one-for-one exchange (since it's 1 for 3 here), but sometimes it is, while later things that are brought over (gold coins, and both Toto and the twister from "The Wizard of Oz") don't appear to have caused something similar to go the other way.
Again, it might just be the nitpicky writer in me bothered by such matters, but I think the film would have benefitted from a clear explanation that, once also known by the characters, could have been used to their advantage. Imagine being able to "draft" any literary character of creation and use that build your "dream team" to battle the villains the save the day.
Additionally, it's never fully explained what sort of writing can be read aloud to cause the switch. While the film uses a bit of hurriedly read new writing to save the day during the conclusion, we never learn why a silver tongue can't simply read the newly written passage "they lived happily ever after" and then be done with everything. Can the silver tongue read his or her own writing for said cause? Must it have been published? For how long?
That said, the filmmakers -- director Iain Softley working from screenwriter David Lindsay-Abaire's adaptation of Funke's work -- occasionally have fun with the material. Due to another silver tongue (John Thompson) having a stutter, those brought over from the other side aren't always fully formed, with many still having words about them tattooed on their skin. There's also a cute bit regarding the casting of Dustfinger's wife (briefly seen in two non-speaking cameo appearances).
Yet, they miss the boat -- and the solution for a major character's potential plight about returning to his novel after hearing the author (Jim Broadbent, whose character, strangely enough, is never searched for until now) reveal the conclusion -- by not exploring what happens when a real-life person goes the other way back into the book. Wouldn't that potentially change the outcome, much like a time traveler arriving in the past and changing history? And if that traded person was another silver tongue, could they purposefully travel into that literary world and read something there to send it back the other way?
The possibilities are endless, and the whole thing could have ended up folding back on itself and then some in a deliriously creative manner that would have made Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman proud (the director/writer duo responsible for "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation"). Again, that's just the writer in me wanting to spruce up the story, but I couldn't help thinking the overall experience would and could have been so much better had the filmmakers fully pushed the envelope of said storytelling.
Granted, that might have gotten too convoluted for some viewers, and especially kids who will likely still find it to be an enjoyable enough diversion. And who knows, it might even get them interested in putting down their video games and cell phones and actually sitting down for a good read. If that's the case, we say bring on the sequels (that we hope have more fun with the premise). "Inkheart" rates as a 5.5 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
