A High Wind in Jamaica (1965)

Plot:  In 1870, Cuban Pirates capture several children on their way back to England
Stars: Anthony Quinn, James Coburn

Why are so many movie-makers attracted to filming great novels? It never turns out well, since the novel's greatness rarely translates to the screen.  A High Wind in Jamaica is a case in point.  The book is great because of its style, ironical humor, and insight into children's minds - none of which can filmed.

As a result, the film has to make do with the externals - the plot and the character's outward actions. Neither of which are remarkable.  Even worse, the film retains the faults of the novel.  The children and Pirates all blend together - except for Emily, the Captain and the First Mate. Everyone else is a cipher.

Further, book's sad ending is made even sadder.  In the novel, "Emily" breaks down in tears and sobs about "killing" and "a knife". Its very ambiguous - but the Judge concludes the Pirates killed the Dutch Captain - and they're hanged.  The movie makes it even worse.  Movie "Emily" deliberately lies about the killing to protect herself.  And then the movie tacks on an ironical "look at those innocent kids" ending.

Basically, this is a story that should only be made into a fun romp - a Disney movie - or not made at all. Otherwise, you get a "family film" which isn't fit for the "family." 

The Acting
And its not Quinn's best performance.  He stomps around and looks exasperated but he's not funny or very interesting, and the same is true of Coburn.

The Adaptation
Despite being overrated (71st best novel of the 20th century? I think not), A High Wind in Jamaica, is a very good, well-written novel about children and pirates.

The movie changes several things:

 First about 1/3 of this 240 page novel deals with life in Jamaica and kid's experience AFTER they leave the Pirate ship.  Only about 160 pages deals with the Pirates. The movie focuses almost exclusively on the Pirate ship. Out of 120 minutes, about 15 minutes deals with Jamaica and the Trial in England.

Second,  Hughes wrote an "anti-Peter Pan" story. Instead of Peter Pan's amoral Pirates and too-good-to-be-true kids, we get the opposite. I.e. pirates who are too-good-to-be-true and amoral kids. This doesn't really come across in the movie - since we can't get inside the children's minds.

Of course, as anyone who remembers their childhood, children can be quite heartless and callous. And kids forget quickly, one moment a skinned knee is the world's utmost tragedy, the next moment its forgotten.  However, Hughes exaggerates this for polemical purposes.  I sincerely doubt that an elder brother could die and all his siblings not giving a damn, or that children would forget their parents within a week.  Finally, most children have a strong sense of fair play, and right and wrong, even if they can't articulate it.

Other differences:  The novel of course, has "Disney" moments, but its undercut by the narrator's irony and the description. And the brutality is written but minimized. For example, when John falls to his death, the novel states this in two mater of fact sentences. But in film, a kid falling to his death has a big impact.