By Matt Savelloni
April 17, 2003
“THE FIRST RULE OF HOLES: WHEN YOU'RE IN ONE, STOP DIGGING.” – Milly Ivans
HARRY POTTER is my only exposure to children’s literature as an adult. I have scant recollection of favorites from my own youth: THE GREAT BRAIN adventures, THE VELVETEEN RABBIT, WINNIE THE POOH, DR. SEUSS. But I was one of those nerdy advanced readers who moved quickly on to more adult works. As a result, I hardly qualify as an experienced judge of children’s literature. While reading HOLES, I couldn’t help but think: “My God, is this appropriate for children?” I was projecting my own adult inferences on a youthful story and that’s where I think we get into trouble. We tend to sanitize before we ever know the true potency of a work on its intended audience, constantly trying to insulate and protect young minds, a noble effort, but one with the unfortunate effect of denying reality and progression. Thankfully, a much savvier person by the name of Louis Sachar created HOLES and the result is a great, unexpected adventure for young readers.
I say unexpected because I am surprised at the dark themes and venerable reality of HOLES, the story of Stanley Yelnats, a lovable lug sentenced for a crime he didn’t commit to Camp Green Lake, an immense span of desert with no lake and certainly no green. The boys at Camp Green Lake are tasked with digging holes, five feet wide by five feet deep, in the sweltering sun every day. The project, overseen by the wicked Warden and enforced by the nefarious Mr. Sir and the condescending Mr. Pedanski, is intended to build character but the motives of the administrators are anything but virtuous. As the story unfolds, we are introduced to a rich Wild West history about the local area, Stanley’s “no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-grandfather” who is the source of his bad luck and the bandit Kissin’ Kate Barlow. This provides not just an historical backdrop but a lineage of interaction between our present-day players and a legacy of greed and redemption. There is a lot of character building in HOLES but it comes in waves totally unexpected. Whereas the POTTER works are mythical Good vs. Evil fables, HOLES presents contemporary kids in shades of gray, restraining its judgement in a way that lends as much gravity as it does pathos.
“FRIENDSHIP IS A SINGLE SOUL DWELLING IN TWO BODIES.” – Aristotle
 |
The list of accolades for HOLES is ridiculous. Just to name a few, it received the 1999 Newbery Medal, 1998 National Book Award for Young People’s Literature, Christopher Award for Juvenile Fiction, A New York Times Book Review Notable Children’s Book of the Year and Publisher’s Weekly Notable Children’s Book of the Year. The story is simply written, as to be expected for an audience of 9- to 12-year olds, but its themes and wry, offbeat humor can be appreciated by all readers.
The core of HOLES’ success is not the twisting adventure, the historical myth or the hero beating the odds—all of which are compelling in their own merit. The diamond in this story’s rough is the friendship between Stanley and Zero. They are the pistons driving the story, Sachar peeling back layers of each like the onions they eat to survive to slowly reveal a common sense of decency and trust, the hallmarks of lasting friendships. HOLES takes a dramatic turn at about the halfway point that sets it apart from most of its like-minded genre. Instead of a rousing STALAG 17 for kids, which was what I was expecting, Sachar sends Stanley and Zero off on their own life-and-death adventure. Wisely, HOLES never excuses the other kids in the Camp. Although they are given catchy nicknames like X-Ray, Zigzag and Armpit, they are still juvenile delinquents who committed crimes earning them trips to the purgatory of Camp Green Lake. And while there are moments of camaraderie and esprit de corps, Sachar often undercuts them with the pettiness, unpredictability, disloyalty and violence one might expect from juvenile delinquents. This lends a plausibility to HOLES lacking from “safer” children’s entertainment. It also raises the stakes for Stanley and Zero, who face certain punishment and possible execution from the Warden even if they survive their lethal predicament. They have only each other to depend on. Buried treasure or no buried treasure, the real triumph in HOLES is the culmination of the friendship between these two unlikely heroes.
Sachar graciously allows his characters to live and breath, to vacillate from acrimonious to mysterious to placating to wounded to intimidating. This is no small feat given the minimal time dedicated to character development but Sachar crafts whole individuals out of simple sketches and observations of their behavior; we are neither surprised nor let down by their respective turns. He also wisely leaves a lot up to the reader to figure out on his or her own. He fills in a few “holes” in terms of plotting but I suspect that the close of the novel prompted many discussions between children and their friends, teachers and parents. Sachar captures these characters and this story during one dramatic turn in life, leaving us with the impression that there was a lot of beginning we haven’t seen but can infer and a whole future waiting to be filled.
“LIFE IS EITHER A DARING ADVENTURE OR NOTHING.” – Helen Keller
It’s funny, my last review also focused on a work being turned into a film starring Sigourney Weaver. I gushed profusely about her as one of my favorite actors of all time. In the film adaptation of HOLES, Weaver plays the Warden, once again utilizing an unstoppable range from hero to villain and everything in-between. She is a perfect choice, combining beauty with believable fright. Once can easily imagine children either falling in love with her or fearing her, both qualities that a Warden of a camp for delinquent boys would use to her advantage. I’m looking forward to seeing Weaver exude these same powers over Tim Blake Nelson (Mr. Pedanski) and Jon Voight (Mr. Sir), two of our very best character actors working today.
The two question marks for me are Louis Sachar and Andrew Davis. Sachar has written innumerable popular children’s books widely respected by educators and parents. However, none of his properties has been adapted for the big screen until now and he has never written a screenplay. With HOLES he is suddenly the sole screenwriter credited for the adaptation of a major Disney summer adventure film. I am all for writers adapting their own property, so my concern is tempered by his inexperience. Hollywood suffers badly from lack of original vision; too often a project is set adrift in a sea of marketing, demographics and idiotic infusion from graduate students who know nothing of storytelling. At the very least, Sachar’s characters should be paid the respect they’re due, keeping the spirit of HOLES intact.
Andrew Davis is the biggest question mark of all and it seems surprising to say that about a director with two legitimate blockbusters under his belt. Davis in one life was a very dependable director who crafted solid action-adventure films out of precarious stars Chuck Norris (CODE OF SILENCE) and Steven Seagal (ABOVE THE LAW and UNDER SIEGE). With an improved cast he made the very tight thriller THE PACKAGE with Gene Hackman and Tommy Lee Jones. Then Davis reached the top of the mountain with THE FUGITIVE, a showcase of keen, believable action that never sacrificed character. With Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones grounding an impressive cast, THE FUGITIVE was a welcome rarity: a summer film with heart and brains to spare and a $350 million worldwide gross to justify its champion.
But all good things must pass. Davis’ next film carried that odious stigma of so many Hollywood blunders: the dreaded Vanity Project. You could hear the Hollywood executives groaning but what could they do? Davis was hot. He had culled good movies out of unlikely soil before, so they decided to trust him on this personal project, aptly titled STEAL BIG, STEAL LITTLE (I will leave it up to you to decide just who was being robbed). Never mind that it was about twins—has any movie about twins ever worked besides DEAD RINGERS and ADAPTATION?—and never mind that it tried to combine action with slapstick, romance and comedy, three genres completely foreign to Davis’ proven expertise and a mixture that had worked so well in ISHTAR and HUDSON HAWK. STEAL BIG, STEAL LITTLE failed for one reason: lack of vision. Take a look at the credits: three writers, including Davis, are given the dubious distinction of coming up with the “story.” For the actual screenplay, we get four different writers, Davis twice for a subsequent rewrite of his own script. Wow, six different storytellers for one film, is it any wonder the result was a dull, immobile $35 million bomb that grossed a whopping $6 million at the box office? Davis has yet to recover. Before the woeful Hitchcock insult A PERFECT MURDER, Davis ripped himself off in the dreary CHAIN REACTION. And last year, he shot the ill fated but still run-of-the-mill COLLATERAL DAMAGE with another fading star, Arnold Schwarzenegger, doing another leap over a waterfall. Ugh. With some luck, HOLES will mark the return of the Andrew Davis we all loved back in the late 80’s, early 90’s. If not, HOLES, a potentially great family adventure, could end up an unfortunate casualty.
“Too often we give our children answers to remember rather than problems to solve.” – Roger Lewin
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
