Alright, let’s be honest – Roald Dahl is sacred ground. Messing with his work is like adding ketchup to biryani – some things are just fundamentally wrong. So, when I heard there was an Americanized stage version of The Twits Review , my initial reaction was somewhere between skepticism and outright horror. Could anyone really capture the grotesque glee and deliciously dark humor of the original? Well, I went in with an open mind (and maybe a slight dread), and here’s what I found.
The Original’s Gruesome Charm | What Made It Great
Before we dive into the American adaptation, let’s quickly revisit what makes the original Twits so… well, brilliantly awful. Dahl didn’t pull any punches. Mr. and Mrs. Twit are vile, disgusting creatures who revel in tormenting each other and everyone around them. Their pranks are cruel, their habits revolting, and their overall existence is just a testament to human awfulness. This is children’s literature? Absolutely! And that’s what makes it so captivating. Dahl held a mirror to the darker sides of humanity, and kids, in their weird way, often get that kind of honesty. Here’s the thing: the book’s strength lies in its unapologetic depiction of nastiness, which is ultimately used to teach a lesson about kindness and justice.
The illustrations, often by Quentin Blake, added another layer of magic (or should I say, madness?). The visual depiction of Mrs. Twit’s glass eye or Mr. Twit’s perpetually filthy beard were almost as impactful as the words themselves. So, any adaptation faces a huge challenge: how do you translate that unique blend of literary and visual horror to a new medium?
Americanized vs. Original | Lost in Translation?
This is where things get tricky. The Americanized stage version, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, seems to have sanded down some of the edges. It’s like they took the original recipe and replaced some of the key ingredients with… well, something blander. The gruesome charm , the very essence of what made The Twits so memorable, feels diluted.
Instead of focusing solely on pure nastiness, the American version often injects more slapstick and physical comedy. Now, I’m not against a good pratfall, but it felt… forced. The humor felt less organic, less rooted in the characters’ inherent awfulness, and more like a generic attempt to get a cheap laugh. What fascinates me is how different cultures perceive dark humor. What might be hilarious to a British audience, may need tweaking for American sensibilities. But in doing so, I feel this version lost some of its bite.
But, of course, theater is a visual medium, and maybe they ramped up the visuals? Sadly, not in a way that captured Dahl’s style. The sets and costumes felt… well, ordinary. Compare this with productions of other Dahl works, like Matilda, where the visual elements amplified the story’s whimsical darkness. Here, it felt like they were playing it safe. As Roald Dahl himself probably knew, sometimes you need to be brave to be truly brilliant.
Why This Matters | The Importance of Darkness in Children’s Stories
Okay, so maybe this particular adaptation missed the mark. But here’s why this matters: there’s a growing tendency to sanitize children’s stories, to shield them from anything remotely unpleasant. And I think that’s a mistake. Children aren’t stupid. They understand that the world isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. They also have to understand concepts like cruel behaviors . In fact, exposing them to age-appropriate darkness can be incredibly valuable. It allows them to explore complex emotions, grapple with moral dilemmas, and ultimately, develop empathy.
Dahl understood this perfectly. He wasn’t afraid to show kids the ugly side of things, because he knew that it would ultimately make them stronger and more compassionate. The Twits, in all their disgusting glory, serve as a cautionary tale. They show us what not to be. This is why it is important to know how a play differs from a book adaptation . And by diluting that message, we risk losing something truly important.
Casting and Performances | A Mixed Bag
Let’s talk about the actors. They certainly gave it their all, and I don’t want to sound overly critical. However, I felt that some of the performances leaned a little too heavily into caricature. Mr. Twit, for instance, came across more as a bumbling fool than a genuinely menacing figure. And Mrs. Twit, while suitably unpleasant, lacked the subtle, almost gleeful malice that makes her so captivatingly awful in the book. The casting was also a consideration, a lot of people feel as though british literature is important to cast properly.
That said, there were some bright spots. The actors playing the monkeys (the Muggle-Wumps) brought a lot of energy and physicality to their roles. Their scenes were among the most engaging in the entire production, and they managed to capture some of the original story’s anarchic spirit.
Final Thoughts | Nostalgia vs. Innovation
Ultimately, this Americanized version of The Twits Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review felt a bit like a missed opportunity. It had moments of charm, but it lacked the original’s truly gruesome edge. Maybe that’s just a matter of taste, or maybe it’s a sign of the times. But, for me, it just wasn’t quite… revolting enough.
One thought I was left with: Are we too afraid to be genuinely nasty in children’s entertainment these days? The Twits , in its original form, held up a mirror to the dark corners of human behavior, and it did so without apology. That’s what made it so powerful. Let’s embrace the darkness, folks. Just like the original version , after all.
FAQ
What age group is The Twits appropriate for?
The original book is generally recommended for ages 8-12, but it really depends on the child. Some younger children might find it too scary or disgusting, while older kids might find it too silly.
Is there a movie adaptation of The Twits?
As of now, there isn’t a live-action movie adaptation of The Twits, but there have been talks about it for years. Keep an eye out!
What are some other books by Roald Dahl that are similar to The Twits?
If you enjoyed The Twits, you might also like “George’s Marvelous Medicine” or “The Witches,” both of which feature Dahl’s signature dark humor and mischievous characters.
Where can I find the original book, The Twits ?
The Twits is widely available in bookstores, libraries, and online retailers like Amazon.
Are there different editions of “The Twits” available?
Yes, there are various editions of “The Twits”, including paperback, hardcover, and illustrated versions. Check with your local bookstore or online retailers.
What is a crucial element to consider in a theater production?
An actor’s performance. It can be a make it or break it for a production.
