Over winter break I devoted a library trip to rediscovering books I read as a kid. I found E.B. White’s “Stuart Little,” one of the books I didn’t read and wanted to give it a try.
There’s a critic out there that said when it came to “Stuart Little,” White was more of a story teller in scenes rather than bringing about one story with a great plotline. I can’t help but agree with this. Once I finished “Stuart Little” I was shocked to find out that E.B. White never wrote a sequel. For me the book just sort of ended. There was a last question and the reader just never gets to know the answer. (Spoiler alert for anyone who wants to read the book: That question is: “Does Stuart Little find Margalo?” The answer is *shrug* I don’t know.)
Recommended for you
Overall there is a reason "Stuart Little" has stood the test of time. The novel and world created is extremely charming, and you crawl into it just like mouse would… err, someone who looks “very much like a mouse in every way” would.
When nearing the end of the book I found the "Stuart Little" films on sale at Target and thought, “Well shoot, my hands are tied. I really have to do an in-depth comparison analysis between the films and books now. Anything for an article.” Sorry everyone.
Firstly… and really it’s the first thing to mention in every way: In the original book Stuart Little isn’t adopted. He’s just sort of born? Then in just a few days he has a small cane and hat with no explanation on how he got them, and it’s whimsy and children’s literary nonsense.
For the film world it made leagues of sense to have Stuart adopted. I really love the Little adoption scene. Also Stuart’s animation is great, and his voice actor Michael J. Fox is great, and how the entire family’s outfits and home decor are brightly color coordinated all the time is just great, okay?
Stuart has an older brother, a mean cat named Snowbell (shout out to Nathan Lane), and a family with a cute house in New York City. That, however is just about where the similarities between book and movie end. Then the rest could almost be summarized with things like, “Yes it’s true that Stuart sails a ship called “the Wasp,” or “narration time is spent on how he brushes his teeth.”
There's a few more book plot points that happen in the film sequel, such as Stuart looking for a wedding ring down the sink drain, and later getting stuck on a garbage scow in the middle of the ocean.
The major event that ties it’s plot to the second half of E.B. White’s novel is Margalo. In each version a little female bird is rescued into the family and Stuart has a bit of a crush. Common themes of the first “Stuart Little” movie are actually from the “sequel” section for the book, such as Snowbell making deals with other cats, and Stuart having a car. The end of second movie kind of lost me though with its invented drama with a hawk.
Lastly that leaves us with the third “Stuart Little” movie: the animated “Call of the Wild.” This is a painfully a low budget, direct-to-video movie, but I watched it, my dear readers, so you wouldn’t have to.
This movie was… not as bad as I was expecting. I think I laughed twice? I mean, it by no means was worth it, but there were positives things like Michael J. Fox returning as Stuart's voice. Plus you do get used the budget animation eventually. Then there’s this annoying skunk, and plot around a mountain lion, and yeah it’s pretty bad, just nowhere near as bad as I was expecting. Similarities to the book begin and end with, “Stuart rides in a canoe.”
One thing that was in the books, but didn’t make it into a film was how great Stuart was when he got to substitute teach a class. It was one of the best things E.B. White wrote. I find the book is worth a read, and it’s a quick one at that. After that nothing really beats the charm and sincerity of the first film, though the sequel overall is worth watching as well.
