Newbery Books Turned Into Films

In case you were wondering, I think that Holes is the best adapted Newbery award winner, though it was fun to try to think up the others. Here, in order from best to worst, are the Newbery-to-film adaptations and how well I feel they did their job. If I've left anything out (and feel free to add some more if you think of them) lemme know.

The Ones I've Seen

1999 Award Winner: Holes: Loving me my Holes. Holes is so good. The great American children's novel is Holes. And with the exception of a thin Stanley (who we will forgive because he could act) the movie was pitch-perfect and faithful as can be. I'm not saying I'd object to seeing another version of it done (wouldn't it be great if the BBC did one?) but this is as good as it gets for now. Now about that television show version...

1978 Award Winner: Bridge to Terabithia - See review. For the purposes of simplicity we'll ignore the 1985 TV version (though I am amused by the recent rerelease you can find these days).

1986 Award Winner: Sarah, Plain and Tall - First off, you can forgive it some of its ills if only because the book itself is so very slight. Still, Christopher Walken does his nice-not-creepy-dad thing, and almost pulls it off. And are you going to look Glen Close in the face and tell her she didn't do a good job? Are you?

1936 Award Winner: Caddie Woodlawn - Yeah well. I've seen worse. Sure, the wig on that Carrie's head looked like it'd been sculpted with a Wendys in mind, but the acting wasn't bad. I'm lukewarm on this one.

1992 Award Winner: Shiloh - Again, not bad. Plus, how can you resist an adorable beagle pup? Huh? Huh?

1944 Award Winner: Johnny Tremain - And here we take a turn for the worse. Anyone remember that song about the Sons of Liberty they sing at the end? I'm trying to conjure it up but nothing's coming. Plus I was convinced until about 5 minutes ago that this was a Disney film starring Tommy Kirk. I cannot fully express the depth of my shock right now.

1972 Award Winner: Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH - Yeah. Well. Which is to say The Secret of NIMH. I sure hope the filmmakers of this one had the decency to wait until author Robert O'Brien was good and dead before they churned out this monstrosity. You know what a cool sci-fi Newbery winner like this one really needs? A magic stone! Oh! Oh! And let's kill off Nicodemus in a kind of Obi Wan Kenobi fashion so that Mrs. Brisby (why the name change?) can use the rodentia equivalent of "the force" for no particular reason.

1963 Award Winner: A Wrinkle in Time - Why, Alfre Woodard? Why? Your excuse must be somewhere along the lines of, "They backed a dumptruck full of money to my front door. I'm not made of stone!"

And just for giggles, here are the other Newbery adaptations that exist but that I have never seen.

1981 Award Winner: Jacob Have I Loved - Bridget Fonda? Well, I'll be damned.

1977 Award Winner: Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry - A TV movie from 1978, as it happens. I suspect that with Roots getting as much attention as it did in 1977, the time had never been better for this film to get made. We have an ancient creaky VHS tape circulating in our collection. You'd think it'd just collect dust, but watch that puppy fly off the shelf whenever the kids are assigned this one to read for school.

1970 Award Winner: Sounder - Two versions here! A 1972 and a 2003. The 1972 version had bigger names.

1968 Award Winner: From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler - Again with the two versions. One in 1973 and one in 1995. Now what I love about these two films is that in each of them, the part of Mrs. Frankweiler was taken by an old-time movie goddess of one sort or another. Do you prefer to watch Lauren Bacall? Or are you more an Ingrid Bergman type? I, personally, was unaware that the film The Hideaways was based on From the Mixed Up Files. That explains why my library's circ copies (and we have about 7) keep going out. Huh!

2000 Award Winner: Bud, Not Buddy - Actually it doesn't exist. To which the masses should all yell together in chorus: WHY THE HELL NOT?

Our Shifting Standards

This is big.
This is very big.

Credit Jennifer Schultz for applying a hot branding iron to my lethargic lardish tookus in terms of a relatively recent Newbery/Caldecott announcement.

According to the March issue of School Library Journal, and I quote:

Currently, only books first published in the U.S. by American citizens or residents qualify for the Newbery and Caldecott—but that could change if the task force recommends expanding who's eligible for the prestigious awards. “It's up for discussion,” says Horning. “And it's possible that the task force will recommend we open up the Newbery and Caldecott." The ultimate decision, however, will be made by ALSC's board.

This will apply to the Robert F. Sibert, the Theodor Seuss Geisel, the Laura Ingalls Wilder, and the Mildred L. Batchelder awards (not the Printz since YALSA controls that area) as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, what we are dealing with here is an issue of massive importance. The justification surrounding such a potential move (as stated in the February 2007 issue) is that initially the awards were created so as to give American children's books a chance on the marketplace. To prove that we were just as good as the Brits, so to speak. "Now that the Newbery and Caldecott awards have accomplished their missions, 'the time has come for us to discuss [making changes],' explains [ALSC President K.T.] Horning." Mission accomplished? I see. Fantasies aside, I suppose America has done rather well for itself. And apparently the publishing world is flat to boot. "With the growing globalization of publishing, it became increasingly difficult to define a U.S. publisher, Horning says. It was unclear, for example, whether companies such as The Chicken House, based in England and a partner of the U.S. firm Scholastic would qualify for eligibility, she explains."

So what is the purpose of the ALA Awards anyway? If you say it's to promote good children's books, then why limit it solely to American titles?

It seems to me that just from a practical standpoint, there are some very good reasons for limiting these awards to the home team. I served only half a year on the Newbery committee, but by the end of my term I was swimming a light backstroke through a sea of books. Committees have a hard enough time considering all the American books they're sent. Throw in publishers from Canada, Britain, and Australia and watch the committee members die from a case of slow suffocation in a manner of days. How on earth would anyone be able to seriously consider books from more than one country in the course of a year? Perhaps if ALSC was willing to pay a salary to its committee members, thereby allowing them a chance to give up their jobs for a year so as to live and breathe the books, only then would this be a possibility.

Then there's the question of the major children's awards in other countries. Canada has the Governor General's Literary Award. England the Carnegie Medal (and one of the judges even has a blog). Australia the Children's Book of the Year Awards. Do any of these awards allow for judges to consider books from other countries? They do not. Which makes me wonder whether they too are considering revising their standards in the wake of this quote unquote "global economy".

So who wins here? Certainly if you asked me I'd agree that The Golden Compass deserved to win a big beautiful award all on its own. Sure. But in retrospect it didn't need the help. And certainly we could create an award for English-language titles from other countries (since the Mildred L. Batchelder Award only covers translated foreign titles) but we're getting to the point where more and more awards are being added every year. I mean, we're desperately in need of a good Graphic Novel Award (which I predict will arrive in approximately 10 years). Then again, I doubt anyone, aside from Weston Woods, would cry too hard if the Andrew Carnegie Medal was pulled. Since 2000 they've won six out of seven times. We may as well rename it The Weston Woods Award at this point and get it over with.

I hate to be all U.S.A.! U.S.A.! but I see no reason to change our standards at this point in the game. ALSC has been lovely about dealing with committee bloggers. And something will have to be written in terms of ebooks and whether or not they qualify for major awards. Still, for all that it may be difficult to determine the eligibility of those authors and illustrators who live in multiple countries. If someone happens to have Italian citizenship but resides half the year in America, where is their book eligible for an award? Perhaps we should reconsider our standards regarding our authors/illustrators but maintain that a given book should be published in America on its first printing so as to remain eligible.

Here's my real beef. The Newbery Award SHOULD be changed to apply to books between the ages of 0-12. At this point in time it goes until the age 14, which was fine and all in 1922 but since the birth of The Printz Award is a bit of a moot point. It leads to Kira-Kira and Criss Cross winners. Yet when I once suggested to a friend that the age range be changed, I was told that this could never happen because it would mean the the past winners would end up looking bad. So imagine the complications involved in changing the bloody eligibility of foreign titles!!! It's immense. If the ALSC committee wishes to make a significant change, consider mucking with the age levels first. Then if you want to make it so that Philip Reeve and such n' so can compete for a shiny gold sticker, all power to you. First things first, after all.