Tales Vs. Tales
Having long enjoyed Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City, to say that I was excited to hear about a new Netflix series is an understatement. The rise and fall of the naive Mary Ann Singleton and the exploits of 28 Barbary Lane's inhabitants captured my heart several years ago with a copy of More Tales of the City on DVD that I found in a local bookstore. The cover looked interesting, and I recognized a few of the actors, cheifly Olympia Dukakis and Bill Campbell. It served as a gateway. I quickly fell in love with Mouse, Mary Ann, Anna, Brian, Mona, and the city of San Francisco as seen through the eyes of Maupin's eclectic characters. Born in 1980, I missed the boat on the initial releases of the books, but I sought out some of the more recent editions and eventually watched the other two remaining film adaptations. The three most recent novels (Michael Tolliver Lives, Mary Ann In Autumn, and The Days of Anna Madrigal) served as a cherry on top, allowing me to experience some of the books as they were published. Life was good. And then ... this ... Netflix ... why? Unlike Game of Thrones, which was plagued and hurt severely by the lack of source material in its final few seasons, Tales of the City had the books to draw from. Why not base the new television series on the later novels? When the first trailer for the upcoming series was released, complete with a smiling and beaming Mary Ann, I was a little suspicious. Why has Mary Ann not changed at all? I thought. And what's going on with Barbary Lane? Things certainly weren't this way in the books ... Then the second trailer rolled out, which drove the point home. This wasn't going to be an adaptation. This was going to be Return to Mayberry. While many will no doubt enjoy the new series for what it is, I can't help but wish for more straightforward adaptations of the books. Or, at least, Gayly-forward. Maupin was never afraid to take us to dark places with his characters. Mary Ann In Autumn was one of the most well written books I've ever read, and it pains me that the opportunity was there, as well as the original actors, and unfortunately the new film version seems to have chosen a safe path, with life as one big party (albeit with a few tears along the way). It's especially perplexing when one considers what Maupin and the original actors went through to even bring the previous film adaptations to us. The first mini-series adaptation apparently drew so much hate from conservative and religious groups that PBS abandoned the idea of an immediate sequel, making it that much harder to bring future installments to life. Tales of the City earned its spot by not playing it safe. Why go in reverse now? I get it. We need some happiness, especially given the current political climate, and especially after what seems to be a requirement that every major gay themed cinematic work must end with death, heartache, or an ocean of both. Alas, happiness may not be overflowing from a cup within the last few pages of The Days of Anna Madrigal, but happiness is there, and however bittersweet that happiness is, it's the right ending. Of course, it goes without saying that the books will always be there for myself and others to enjoy, and I imagine that it's more than a lucky thing that we were treated to three film versions that remained close to the books. And maybe I'm jumping to conclusions ... but from what I see in the trailers, coupled with the "inspired by" bit in the online synopsis, I don't have my hopes up. On a positive note, I'm sure the actors are great in this. From the trailer alone, one can see that Ellen Page and Laura Linney play off of one another well, and I'm happy that Tales of the City will continue to reach new audience members. Maybe the new series will bring more people to the book series. Though I imagine a fair share of head-scratching will ensue.
