The film is also more delicate in spirit and gentle, as befits a pure fantasy rather than a fantastic satire. Instead of rolling and careening about crushing evil people like the aunts and destroying things in its wake like James' former house, the cinematic peach is soon taken aloft by beautiful seagulls on gossamer webs. The film, although satirical like the book in its exposure of grown-up's bad behavior and the triumph of children, contains such moments to soften some of the blows of its humor. Another important element of the film not contained in the book is the way that James' parents have died. In the book, this is told in an off-hand, funny, and cruel manner -- they are devoured by a rhinoceros who has escaped from the London zoo. In the film, the viewers actually see James' life before he has to move in with his aunts, which appears much happier. The rhinoceros looks more evil, than randomly and humorously cruel like the escaped...

This gives a kind of moral purpose to James' later pursuit of evildoers like his aunts in New York.
All in all, Dahl's view of the universe is more random and accepting of fate than the American film. The American film casts James as a typical underdog hero who triumphs in New York City, avenging his parent's wrongs and turning against the wicked aunts who kept him captive. The old man who gives James the magic to enable his adventure clearly sees James' crushed spirit, and enables it to burst forth when he has his adventures. But in the book, James is more than an 'every boy' than a hero, and like all children in Dahl's universe, James must accept what fate deals him, whether this comes in the form of his parent's death, good and bad relatives, talking insects and the cruel path of the peach, all cumulating when his random good fortune brings him to end his adventure in New York City.

Works Cited

Dahl, Roald. James and the Giant Peach. New York: Puffin, 2000.

James and the Giant Peach." Directed by Harry Selick. 1996.