I haven't yet read Tom Perrotta's Little Children, the book writer/director Todd Field and Perrotta adapted together into the film of the same name. It is on my reading list -- I generally like to read the book a film has been adapted from, especially if I really liked the film, which is certainly the case with Little Children. When Field introduced the film at Telluride, he noted that when he and Perrotta set out to adapt the book, they weren't looking to just cut-and-paste the book into a film, but rather to create something entirely new based on the book as source material.

Over at 10 Zen Monkeys, Destiny has an interesting piece up on some bits from the book -- some sexy, some just fairly intense -- that were omitted from the screenplay, and questions whether the film would have been better with them in it. The post has a lot of spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film, you might want to hold off reading it until you get a chance to catch it. If you have seen the film, though, it's interesting to read and to imagine what the film might have looked like with these scenes in it.

Little Children was nommed for three Academy Awards, including one for adapted screenplay, and went home empty-handed. Why do you think that happened? Was the competition too tough? The film and the characters too dark and unlikable? Personally, I would have liked to see Jackie Earle Haley take Best Supporting Actor -- it's not easy to imbue an unrepentant pedophile with a sense of humanity and make the audience feel empathy for him, but Haley (along with Phyllis Somerville, who turned in a deeply moving performance as his mother) managed to accomplish that feat.
categories Oscars, Cinematical