The Goldfinch: sometimes bad can come from good

SPOILERS AHEAD

Adaptations of books to movies have long since been contentious, and The Goldfinch is no different. Published in 2014, Donna Tartt's behemoth received relative acclaim, to the point of being awarded a Pulitzer. I hadn't heard of it myself until the first trailer was released for last year's adaptation. After seeing the trailer and doing some research, I then found out that it was a novel, and set myself the task of reading it before the movie came out - all 784 pages of it. I succeeded and, despite some flaws, enjoyed it. I was looking forward to the movie now that I had an understanding of what was going to happen. Or at least that was what I thought.

I will be upfront and say that I personally found the movie to be extremely disappointing. It had the makings of being excellent - good source material, a strong cast, Roger Deakins behind the camera - but it ended up falling flat. There were always going to be challenges in translating the novel to the screen; it is long, after all. But longer novels have been translated into films far better than this one. With my limited expertise, I assume that adapting a novel for the screen is all about picking out what is important and discarding what is not as important, while retaining the essence of the original. This is not what happened with The Goldfinch. It feels almost as though the director read the novel's summary on Wikipedia and thought - "Alright, let's make a movie."

There is no doubting that the movie looks beautiful. When you have Roger Deakins on cinematography, there's no way your camera work won't be good. It is aesthetically pleasing, with nice sets and equally nice costumes. But style will only get you so far when there is no substance underneath. Ultimately, for all the movie's beauty, it remains a hollow adaptation of a novel that is brimming with promise.

I have, for my sins, seen this movie four times now. Three of those times were with other people; my Mum strongly disliked it, my friend - Ash - said it was confusing, and my Dad fell asleep. I can honestly say that it does not get better the more times you watch it. It feels cruel to say that it gets worse, but its flaws do become more obvious. These criticisms are not wholly unfounded, I assure you, and I do have some praises to offer as well. Shall we begin?

The movie opens as the book does; with older Theo (Ansel Elgort) offering a cryptic, retrospective look at his life thus far. After this short sequence we join younger Theo (Oakes Fegley) in the aftermath of an incident that has irreparably changed his life. This is the first instance of many in which the narrative jumps back and forth between present and future (sometimes present and past - it's all a bit confusing). I will allow it this time, as it follows the structure of the book and provides a necessary introduction, of sorts. However, the movie continues to do this throughout, at the expense of its pace and flow. Oftentimes, the narrative will jump either forwards or backwards in a manner that is jarring and wholly unnecessary. This is rendered inevitable by the fact that the story is not told chronologically. It would've made sense and given the movie a greater sense of flow if it the timeline had been linear; i.e., if the bombing had been played out fully at the beginning, with all other subsequent events coming after that. Instead, this necessary exposition is deferred and told in snippets throughout the movie. Now, don't get me wrong, sometimes this can work - if it is done well. Unfortunately, here, it isn't, and results in a narrative that is choppy and confusing.

In the original novel, the relationship between Theo and his mother is given ample time for exploration before the events of the bombing. This creates higher stakes and an emotional connection with the audience that does not exist in the movie. We don't even know Theo or his mother - Audrey - prior to the accident; thus, it is difficult to connect with them, especially Audrey (Hailey Wist), whose face we only see ten minutes from the end.

Theo is swiftly dropped into the care of the Barbour family, the matriarch of which is played - albeit strangely - by Nicole Kidman. His time with the Barbours is painfully dragged out to the point of being wholly unnecessary and is filled with unnatural dialogue that never manages to imitate the flow of a real conversation. There are virtually no consequences for half of the things that happen or are discussed in the Barbour household, resulting in a very lacklustre and very long sequence that finally ends when Theo's deadbeat father comes to 'get' him and take him to Las Vegas. He is accompanied by his girlfriend, Xandra, played by the talented Sarah Paulson, who was wasted in this movie. For all the character is unlikeable, her portrayal is extremely engaging and affecting.

When it finally seems like the movie is going somewhere - the Vegas scenes are some of the best in the book - we are, once again, interrupted by a jump to the future. There is one sequence that combines four different time periods to absolutely no effect but that of confusion. Once again, I am not decrying the use of multiple timelines: this can work if it is handled correctly. For example, Greta Gerwig's Little Women does so perfectly; its lack of chronology does not make for a jarring or confusing narrative. I wish I could say the same for The Goldfinch.

Anyway, let us return once again to Vegas, where Theo makes the acquaintance of Boris Pavlikovsky (Finn Wolfhard). Oakes and Finn have good chemistry and the friendship between these two characters is steadfast. Boris is my favourite book character, and I was eager to see him done justice in the movie. He can be unapologetically crass and is definitely eccentric, but he is also Theo's best friend and the closest thing he really has to family. I wish I could say I loved the way he is portrayed in the movie, but I'd be lying. Don't get me wrong, I like Finn Wolfhard. I think he was particularly funny as Richie Tozier in IT (2017) and it's sequel, but this role didn't suit him. The character becomes a caricature to the point of being almost cringeworthy, which is a shame. The entire Vegas arc is one of the book's best, but in the movie it drags its heels and is disappointing. By the time Boris sends Theo off to New York with a kiss and an untold secret, we are an hour and a half into a movie that is far longer than it has any right to be.

So, we've got less than an hour left of the movie at this point, and if you haven't read the book you're probably feeling really confused. The movie assumes quite a bit of knowledge on behalf of the audience - especially later on - and without that knowledge you'd probably be pretty lost. Heck, I read the book and even I'm confused.

Eight years later, and Theo is living with Hobie (Jeffrey Wright), working in the antique shop and in a loveless engagement with Kitsey Barbour (Willa Fitzgerald). He is still unhealthily and hopelessly obsessed with Pippa (Ashleigh Cummings), who has since moved to England with her own fiancé. On top of all of this, Boris makes a triumphant return to the screen, played now by Aneurin Barnard. His portrayal redeems the character; he takes to it perfectly and his chemistry with Ansel Elgort is undeniable in allowing Theo and Boris's relationship the depth it requires. It is Boris's arrival that then sets the ball rolling for the movie's final act; simultaneously the best, the most exciting, and the most rushed.

Because the movie has dwelled on such unnecessary scenes in the first two thirds or so, the final third is unfairly rushed. The story of getting the painting back - oh, yeah, Boris stole it eight years ago and it got lost in a drug deal. Theo's been hugging a wrapped up Civics textbook thinking it was the painting for EIGHT YEARS. Anyway, the story of getting the painting back becomes convoluted and confusing; unknown names are thrown around that are only relevant if you've read the book. What is undeniably the best sequence in the movie is extremely rushed and ruined with jarring, short scenes that jump back and forth. Time was severely wasted earlier (cough, with the Barbours, cough) that would've been far better spent developing this final arc and allowing the movie's climax to actually be a climax.

Theo and Boris end up getting the painting back, fighting with some old friends in a parking garage, Boris gets shot, and the painting is lost once again. Theo somehow makes it back to his hotel, tries scrubbing blood (of unexplained origin) out of his clothes, and then overdoses on drugs. It is down to Boris to save his life, in a scene that is accompanied by a hauntingly beautiful piece of music. That is one credit that the movie does deserve; the score is excellent and offers necessary support to many of its scenes. Props to Trevor Gureckis!

The main chronological content of the movie closes on a nice speech from Boris in which he tells Theo that the painting has been recovered (insert more names that make no sense if you haven't read the book), and is safe once again. We are then taken back to the beginning when we finally get the delayed exposition of what happened at the museum before the bombing. This scene - in which Theo's mother explains a few paintings before they get to The Goldfinch - feels as though it has been thrown carelessly at the end for no reason. There is no payoff and no discernible reason for putting this scene at the very end of the movie instead of the beginning, where it belonged. There is also a very strange attempt to parallel Theo's relationship with his mother to his relationship with Mrs Barbour that feels out of place and detracts further from the effect of the museum scene. I'm not sure why the Mrs Barbour snippets are there, to be honest. Is it some vague attempt at comparing them as Theo's maternal figures? I don't honestly know; all I can say is that it's unnecessary. That seems to be my buzzword for this movie.

Don't get me wrong, there were some things I liked about the movie. The cinematography is excellent, and there is no doubt that the sets are beautiful and impressive. The score, as previously mentioned, is particularly good; I'd be lying if I said I haven't listened to it on a few occasions. The movie does have a strong cast, for the most part, and they did their best with what they were given. There are also some smaller details throughout the movie that I felt were nice touches; flecks of dust lighting up like the ash from the museum bombing while Theo is drugged up, and the interesting use of soundscapes between scenes involving the bombing itself.

However, these virtues are not enough to save the movie entirely. It is, on the whole, disappointing, lacklustre, and hollow. It is all style and very little substance, unfortunately. I feel as though, due to the depth of the story and the sheer length of the novel, the movie could've worked better as a series. What's done is done, though. The source material has been adapted once. Who knows if it will be again?

Boris tells Theo towards the end of the movie that "maybe good can come from bad". I hear you, Mr Pavlikovsky, and I raise you this: maybe bad can come from good. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common theme for book - movie adaptations. The Goldfinch is another in a long list of adaptations that failed to take well to the screen.

If you have two and a half hours to spare and fancy seeing what's up, then you could check it out. If you do - which I doubt you will - then please let me know what you think of it. Just - don't make me watch it a fifth time.