ironhorse_iv Review of Charlotte's Web

Charlotte's Web (1973)

It's not often that someone comes along who is a true friend and a good writer, but Charlotte's Web was both. It was amazing.

[7/10 · 10 December 2016]

Salutations everybody! 'Charlotte's Web' is considered a classic masterpiece of children's literature, enjoyable to adults as well as children. Written by author E. B. White, the novel, first published in 1952, has gained widespread acclaim and fame to the point that it earned a Newbery Honor award, and has sold more than 45 million copies worldwide. I agree with the fans and the critics with all of the praise. The story about a gentle gray spider, pledging to save a young pig from death was a very powerful and emotional readt; so it's deserve everything, it got. However, it did have a few flaws, within the story structure. First off, I really didn't like, the author allowed the farmer's daughter, Fern Arable to semi understand, what the animals were saying to each other, as it was confusing. Can she hear them or not? If so, why can't everybody, else? The novel does bring the debate that this was all psychological, as she was romanticize and anthropomorphize the animals, as a way to combat the guilt of seeing, her family slaughter these creatures; however I found the idea, not really needed for the story. It took too much focus away from the relationship between Charlotte and Wilbur. It felt a bit distracting. Plus, it open a plot-hole so jarring that it was hard to close. Another is how people in this world, are more interested in the pig than the magic spider in this world? It didn't make sense. Honestly, if this was the real-life, both creature would be destroy, because of people believing it to be work of witchcraft. Despite those nitpicking, I thought, the 1973's animation movie is nearly a perfect adaptation of the source material, unlike the 2003's sequel with the same name. However, it does share the same flaws, as stated above earlier. Nevertheless, I do wish the movie could had kept the swinging rope metaphor and a few other things from the book. It felt a bit missing. The reason, why, is because I didn't think the narrator, Rex Allen does a good job. He was telling us, everything, we already knew, rather than showing us, anything new. Plus, I like how the pacing of narrative dialogue reflections the motion of the swing. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, because it doesn't have that, but the pacing is a bit off, at places. Released to theaters by Paramount Pictures, the film instead, is connect by a series of songs written by the fame Sherman Brothers. While, most of the songs are great like 'There Must Be Something More', 'Chin Up', "A Veritable Smorgasbord' & 'Zuckerman's Famous Pig'. I do understand, why E.B White didn't like the music. It does felt a bit too 'Disneyfication', with the story being interrupted every few minutes, so that somebody can sing a jolly song. In my opinion, songs like 'I Can Talk' & 'We've Got Lots in Common' don't really needed to be there, as it doesn't add much to the story. Another thing wrong with this film is the animation. The animation by Hanna-Barbera Productions really does pales next to even the lesser Disney animation films at the time, both in coloring and detail. There were a lot of lazy reused recycle hand drawn cels shots, throughout this movie. A good example of this, is the goose's eggs hatching scene that they used twice. Then, there is the fact that some of the continuity, doesn't add up, like items disappearing and appear, between shots, and text coming out of nowhere. Then, there was the fact that some of the characters give dull robotic emotional, when they should been more life-like. A good example of this is when Fern Arable visit the farm, only to find out, that the animals do talk. She doesn't seem, one bit, surprise that, she can hear them. Another animation problem was the fact that the animators had problem, presenting size clearly. A good example of this, is Wilbur. He goes from a very small runt, to an overweight piglet, and back to a small creature in a span of a few minutes in some shots. Nevertheless, the animation wasn't the only problem. I saw a few minor setbacks to the voicing department. I really couldn't stand Henry Gibson as Wilbur. His voice was all wrong. He sounds too much of an annoying, whining, uber-dependent adult than a young kid. Also, I didn't like the fact that Wilbur's over anxiety cause Charlotte's death by overworking her, and not allowing her to eat. He felt a bit too disturbing in some of the sentimentality and over needy. In my opinion, I think, the 2006's live-action remake of the same name, got it right, with making it seem like Wilbur's voice is coming from a child who was more self-determine and willing to pitch in, more. Even if it's sounds too similar to the main voice acting from 1995's 'Babe'. Another character that didn't sound right was Fern voiced by Pamelyn Ferdin. She sounds like a commanding mom, rather than a kid. It was a bit off-putting. Despite that, most of the rest of the cast was perfect in their roles. Debbie Reynolds as Charlotte was radiant and versatile. While, Paul Lynde as Templeton was fun to listen too, even if his character is bit dirty, gluttonous, & selfish. Still, I didn't like how Charlotte trick Templeton into going near a cat simply because he did not feel like attending a meeting about Wilbur. That felt a bit extreme. Overall: Despite all its flaws, it's a movie well worth sharing with your family, because of its enduring messages about friendship and love. It's worth looking at the web for.