This Article Contains Spoilers forOldandSandcastle
M. Night Shyamalan’sOldwent wrong in many large and small ways, netting a 50% on Rotten Tomatoes and deeply mixed reviews from critics and audiences alike. Many of the film’s more controversial aspects come from Shyamalan directly, but the film is an adaptation that misses much of its source material.
Oldis a loose adaptation of a 2010 graphic novel entitledSandcastleby Pierre Oscar Levy and Frederik Peeters, Shyamalan reportedly decided to adapt it after receiving the novelas a Father’s Day gift. The film takes the premise of the novel but changes the execution in many substantial ways that affect the overall piece.
RELATED:Fortnite Adds Map Based on M. Night Shyamalan’s ‘Old’
Adaptation is a tricky beast, turning a 330-page graphic novel into a 108-minute film can often require moving things around to fit the new medium. Despite that obvious allowance, messing with the symbolism or meaning of a piece of art can ruin the impact of an otherwise great work. This is not the first attempt at translating a work to film that Shyamalan had a rough time with. The changes made by M. Night Shyamalan have a massively negative effect on a haunting and powerful novel.
The changes start at the top: the new title is silly. Many have mocked the brief and on the nose titleOld,but the problem with it is its complete lack of meaning or intrigue.Oldis a title that says nothing about the work it is applied to and carries no particular symbolism. It sounds morelike a comedy about agingthan the supernatural horror film it actually is. On the other hand,Sandcastleis an excellent title, classic easy symbolism for a story about the fragility and beauty of mortality. Anyone could piece together the meaning of a title likeSandcastle,it’s elegant and meaningful without being obtuse, which raises the question of why one would feel the need to change it.
Despite the nearly identical circumstances of the premise of both works, a trio of families and a couple of strangers come to a mysterious beach which causes them to age rapidly, the actions of the participants differ greatly. The narrative ofSandcastlecarries commentary about racism mixed in with its examination of age and mortality. That element is present inOldbut less focused. In addition, the people who find themselves on the deadly beach react much more harshly in the film. The tragic families ofSandcastlegradually reach a level of comradery as fear gives way to acceptance, but the families ofOldfight and occasionally kill one another. The violent rage of the victimsundermines the message of the original work.
The biggest and most destructive change is the big twist of the film. An act 3 plot twist is ahallmark of Shyamalan’s filmmaking style, at this point it would be more surprising if a film of his had a straightforward plot, so of courseOldis no exception. InSandcastle,there is little to no explanation of the beach, the effects, or why the victims are there. Characters share guesses, some theories have some incidental support in the narrative, but ultimately the story is ambiguous. But a story with that level of openness is often not able to make it to the big screen.
InOld,the heavily mocked beach that makes people old goes largely unexplained as it does in the graphic novel, elements of it are referred to as special, but it seems to be a supernatural mystery. While the beach goes unexplained, the film does offer a brand new explanation for the victims of the beach.Sandcastlefeatures random people united only by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, then suffering the same fate together. InOld,the victims are united by the fact that one of each of their groups suffer from a chronic health condition such as epilepsy or cancer. They are each given a concoction of medicines that is said to be specially designed for their malady, then given an all-expenses-paid vacation to a particular beach resort.The big reveal becomesquite easy to guess; the pharmaceutical company uses the beach to test the long-term effects of its medicine, at the cost of its patients.
This twist seems to have its aim set uponsatirizing big pharma companiesand their unethical practices by putting the blame on them for a previously unexplained event. While the company is clearly not responsible for the existence of the mysterious beach, they are the owners and the culprits of the many deaths that have occurred there. The characters in the film are explained to be the 73rd test group to experience the beach’s effects. This change has a number of negative effects, the most obvious being a few plot holes as dozens are killed by this beach. The narrative damage done is not insignificant, but the real damage is to the meaning of the work.
Ambiguity can be a powerful tool in storytelling, though it is typically important to justify what is happening, leaving elements to the imagination can allow for deeper meaning and more moving horror.Sandcastleis a story about mortality; much like life, humans appear without reason, exist for a brief time, try to make the most of their life, then die.Oldis a story aboutcorporate malfeasance, using a weird supernatural landscape as a tool for profit. This change completely ruins the strength of the original story. Though the two are superficially similar, they are deeply different.
Oldfails entirely to capture the beauty, cleverness and meaning ofSandcastle,which makes it a tragedy that nearly any copy of the novelnow comes with a sticker advertising the film that misunderstood it.Oldfails in many ways, but perhaps the most substantial failure is the bad name it gave an otherwise great graphic novel.
