I am fully aware that no film adaptation of a novel can remain completely faithful to its source. It is just not possible to do- most novels are too nuanced and large to be comfortably fitted into a two hour movie. However, it is possible for a film to capture the message and tone of a novel by keeping true to its narrative. Yet Disney's film adaption of Esther Forbes 1943 novel for young and old, "Johnny Tremain," failed to stay true to the narrative of the book and the result is a thoroughly mediocre and bland movie.<br /><br />Set in Revolutionary era Boston, Forbes' novel is the story of a bright, talented, and cocky fourteen year old silversmith apprentice, Johnny Tremain, who because of an accident which cripples his hand finds himself without a profession. Without a future as a silversmith, Johnny must find a new life and career. Along the way he finds himself swept up in the events around Boston in the mid 1770's that culminated in the American Revolution. Johnny becomes involved in the clandestine activities of the Sons of Liberty. He participates in the Boston Tea Party, spies on the British, and mingles with such patriots as John Hancock, Sam Adams, and Paul Revere. The strength of the novel is how Forbes so effortlessly weaved the fictional story of Johnny in with actual historical events and persons. It is just a brilliant work of historical fiction.<br /><br />One would think that a film studio could not make a complete hash of such terrific source material. Yet Disney did. Disney did what is usually expected of film versions of novels- it jettisoned "minor" characters and subplots to streamline the story. That's understandable. What is not forgivable is completely changing the message and tone of the novel in order to have lots of action scenes and a happy ending. In the book, Johnny only hears of about the fighting at Lexington and Concord- in the movie Johnny is shown in the thick of the fighting. That's understandable (film's need action), but what is not forgivable is the ridiculous joyousness of the battle scenes- Johnny and his friend, Rab, hide behind trees, shoot at redcoats, and seem to be having a grand time! They also occasionally break out into song- "Oh, we are the Sons, oh, we are the Sons, the Sons of Liberty!" (It's just as bad as one could imagine.) Disney selling war as a boys' adventure is exactly the opposite of what Forbes intended in her novel.<br /><br />Forbes was not cynical about the ideal of American Revolution- the war was fought so that "a man could stand up." However, Forbes let the reader know that that simple hope came at a terrible price. The character of Rab, Johnny's best friend, is a remarkable seventeen year old boy. He's smart, handsome, fearless, and oozes charisma. He's a boy destined to be a great man. Yet it's not be. At Lexington Green, as Rab stands among the Minutemen confronting the might of the British Empire, he is mortally wounded in the first volley. He never even got a chance to fire his own musket. He dies the next day, propped up in a chair with blood pouring from his mouth. Forbes wanted young readers to know that war is not a boy's adventure- it robs the world of its best and brightest at a very young age. By having Rab walking around, alive and well, and singing that awful song at film's end, Disney succeeded in completely botching its film adaption of "Johnny Tremain." This is one book that is crying for a remake!