Dahl’s tale brought to life in film

The director’s use of colour and imagery is a perfect match for the writer’s whimsical storytelling

Quirky filmmaker Wes Anderson outdoes himself with his comedy adaptation of Roald Dahl’s for Netflix.

This delightful short film has a painterly quality and is an insightful story about wealth and greed. It is Anderson’s second Dahl adaptation, following 2009’s Fantastic Mr. Fox.

This story follows a rich man — with Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role — who discovers a story about a guru and performer who can see without using his eyes.

Henry Sugar learns how to see without his eyes to win at the gambling tables but doesn’t feel fulfilled with himself or the money. He decides to win money to build orphanages and hospitals in less privileged parts of the world. He continues to do this until he dies at the age of 63.

This movie is styled in typical Anderson fashion. The frames are composed to be symmetrical and meticulously planned to move the narrative forward.

He is well-known for his use of bright colours, which gives his films a whimsical look and feel.

Pairing Anderson’s visuals and compositions with Dahl’s use of language and storytelling brings to life the feeling of reading his stories.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is filmed in the style of a stage play, where sets are changed by flats moving to different scenes and props are removed and replaced.

This is rare, because filmmakers usually want to make audience members feel as if they’re silent observers. But this story is a direct adaptation of the book. The actors talk to the audience as Dahl and the characters talk to the reader.

This short film is an art piece — and a charming one at that. Anderson takes the time to give each character their unique setting, story and characteristics, aided and enhanced by the colours, shots and compositions.

Dahl is known for his children’s stories such as Charlie and The Chocolate Factory and The Twits. He captured audiences with his eccentric and playful writing style.

Many of us grew up with his stories, which often offer important lessons for developing minds, such as don’t judge someone because of your prejudices and everybody should have the chance to follow their dreams.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is no different. It sheds light on the idea of money being able to buy happiness. No surprises — it can’t. It buys temporary happiness, but can never make you feel fulfilled or give your life purpose, the story suggests.

Dahl died on 23 November 1990. Almost 33 years after his death, his stories are still popular. As well as Anderson’s adaptations, Matilda has also been made into a movie and a third version of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, starring Timothee Chalamet, is set to be released in December.

But there has been controversy recently about the author’s antisemitism, for which his family issued an apology in 2020, saying: “We hope that, just as he did at his best, at his absolute worst, Roald Dahl can help remind us of the lasting impact of words.”

Some of Dahl’s writing has also been edited of late. In February, The Roald Dahl Story Company and Puffin Books announced the removal, or rewriting, of content deemed insensitive — including references to weight, mental health, violence, gender and race.

“I understand the motivation for it, but I sort of am in the school where when the piece of work is done and we’ve — we participate in it, the audience participates in it, we know it,” Anderson told The Irish Times.

“And so, I sort of think, when it’s done it’s done, and certainly no one who’s not an author should be modifying somebody’s book.”

In my opinion, Anderson is the filmmaker version of Dahl the storyteller. So, it’s no surprise that his adaptations are how you envision them when you read the stories.

It is often difficult to make a film adaptation of a book that pleases both the fans of the book and the fans of the filmmaker. But Anderson doing Dahl is a match made in heaven.

Anderson’s colours and Dahl’s imagery come together to tell a cohesive story. Dahl writes as if he is telling you about an actual event he experienced. Pairing that with Anderson’s vibrant and surreal style of filmmaking makes you feel as if the book has come to life.

There are few author-filmmaker duos that are this cohesive. Anderson had the task of creating the films without Dahl’s input and we will never hear Dahl’s thoughts on his efforts, but I believe it’s fair to say that he would’ve loved them.

I strongly recommend watching this movie — it’s 41 minutes of pure art and joy.

Dahl writes as if he is telling you about an actual event he experienced