Theories of Adaptation: EH Post #2
The dialogic work carries on a continual dialogue with other works of literature and other authors. It does not merely answer, correct, silence, or extend a previous work, but informs and is continually informed by the previous work. -Mikhail Bakhtin
Select one one of the following prompts and write a blog response per this BLOGGING RUBRIC. The readings contain a multitude of ideas about adaptation, so it will be important to narrow your focus to two or three ideas or concepts that interest you, or that you think are of particular importance. Use specific details and short quotes with page citations to support your thinking. This should be between 350 and 500 words.
--Consider the two recent readings about film adaptation. What idea(s) about adaptation are explored in “The Dialogics of Adaptation” that are not discussed in “The Language of Film and Literature”? Use specific details and short quotes with page citations to support your explanations.
--What are some important idea(s) about adaptation that run through both “The Dialogics of Adaptation” and “The Language of Film and Literature”? Use specific details and short quotes with page citations to support your explanations.
Due by midnight Tuesday, 9/11.
Due by midnight Tuesday, 9/11.
Then, read all of your classmates' blog entries, and "deepen and broaden the conversation" by replying to one or two of your classmates' entries in at least 200 words. Due by midnight Thursday, 9/13.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of cinematization is an important idea for both articles. On page fifty-five in Film Adaptations it discusses how slight changes between the original text and the film are what make the idea of cinematization an actual thing. It means that little differences, a traditional adoption, within the film. For example it could be changing the color of a dress, or having a character try on earrings instead of just looking at them. It is these small changes that are discussed quite often while looking at films. I personally think these changes, made by the director, have the most impact to whether or not it was a good, or great adaptation of the original text. I also think that we as an audience will not all have the same opinion to the question of was it a good translation because we all have pictured the film adapted differently and we see the characters differently than each other. With the many types of adaptations: literal, radical, traditional, it is important to pick the right one for that specific film and director. For example the original text of Romeo and Juliet has been adapted into all three types of adaptations and they have all been great, but different. It would then go to the viewer to decide which is the best adaptation for their bias point of view.
On page sixty-one the article discusses how cinema is art. I find this to be incredibly true. The way that a book, or story can be taken from something that is read and imagined, and then changed into a visually and auditory experience is incredible. For me the most interesting and art challenging, and incredible part of making a film is the editing process. Because it takes hours and many people to put together specific scenes with the perfect music to make a viewer feel a specific way. It is exactly what an author is doing when they write a book, but they are doing it in totally different way which is amazing. When a director chooses to use a specific part in a book they are choosing to recreate something that many people have created in their head a thousand different ways. The director then has to choose a certain way to accomplish getting the same feeling, and generally the same ending.
I appreciate your viewpoint on cinemization in both of these articles. In which slight changes made to the original text and the film are what make the concept of cinematization a reality. Minor changes, such as the color of a dress- or even what the cast looks like can differentiate from the original work. Most of the time an author fabricates characters and settings so that they can be nearly impossible to replicate precisely. But I think this is part of what makes the concept of film so exciting! Adaptations are their own art form like you said, art is independent from original craft. Perspective ties back into this, interpretation of a story belonging to a single person will likely not correspond with other interpretations. What a world to be an interpreter! Romeo and Juliet is such a popular story that has been adapted into several films all of which are depicted uniquely, the sole vision of the interpreter. I’m curious to see how many “remakes” and film adaptations can vary, as all of them do regardless if they focus on the same story. Sometimes I wish novels or short stories I’ve read could spontaneously become films. Only I seem to contradict myself, for fear of the interpretation being different than my own. With an open mind, perspective is such an incredible thing- I am astonished by how many great minds interpret something differently than I do.
DeleteLiterary adaptations can never precisely be the same thing as its source, because it is a different medium that distinguishes different forms of storytelling. Such adaptations are “seen as a secondary work of secondary value” (Cahir 13). Most adaptations are thorough and accurate in their depiction but aren’t necessarily indistinguishable from their source material. There are bound to be differences. Interpretations of film may be seen as secondary because they aren’t original, they are based on stories, presenting similar ideas differently, utilizing different methods in doing so. Because of this, there is an “automatic difference between film and novel” (Stam 55). Film and novel are two completely different motors for storytelling, yet thay may present similar ideas and plots. This “automatic difference” is of the two different art forms to begin with. Film is not just a different version, but a different vision, a translation, an interpretation. Our interpretations as readers may heavily contradict certain details, character choices, and ideas, that a film adaptation does. “The question is not that of the translations faithfulness, but faithfulness to what?” (Cahir 15). To look at what exactly the translation does with its source material is better than simply inferring whether it is faithful or not. Adaptations aren’t necessarily trying to replicate the story word for word, they use it for a foundation to construct the narrative that will be represented on film.
ReplyDeleteWhen deciding what to take from the text to translate into film, the filmmakers must “determine what is most crucial, what is of secondary importance, and what is of least importance: Its accessibility to a popular audience?” (Cahir 15). It is probably the intent of the translators to be faithful to the text and use it for inspiration, but it is in their translation that creates something different. Every translation utilizes different methods in doing so, but all hope to complete an adaptation that considers and represents what the parent text introduced. In the case of John Huston’s adaptation of Herman Melville's Moby-Dick, “philosophical meditations were largely ignored because of the uncinematic nature and allusive material” (Stam 73). This is an example of an adaptation that “downplayed” the original text and may have embodied the basic story well, but not the soul and essence within, in this case, the dense philosophical undertones that act as a significant tone and theme in the story. The filmmakers here were worried about making a film too complex for an everyday audience. In the end, film and novel, specifically film adapted from a novel, are certainly divergent in their approach to emphasize narrative, themes, and characters. “A translation can not simultaneously replicate the resonating beauty of the language and its word-for-word meaning” (Cahir). An adaptation can’t be a replication because of this. It’s why it is called film adaptation not film replication, which can’t be achieved, its all an interpretation, not a violation, but a contemporary creation.
You made a point about changing a film a lot from its literature to better fit a general audience’s understanding. There are many reasons why directors change things making literary adaptations, but you brought up a very good idea. Sometimes literature is so complex that a director can’t help but simplify it to better fit the needs of an audience. A wider range of ages are more likely to go to a movie than to read a book in today’s society, and I think it is a very important thing to think about when creating a literary adaptation. Not to say that a director can’t keep the storyline complex, staying true to its literature, but I think it becomes a more prominent issue, if that, when making a film. You also talk about how filmmakers must divide out what is most crucial and what is not in a book, in order to know what to include in a literary adaptation. In the case of literature that is hard to understand, what do they do when some of the most crucial parts in a book are the most difficult to understand?
DeleteI think you make really good points on the difficulties that directors face and the sometimes very critical decisions they are forced to make when adapting a piece of literature.
I feel there are many different ways to adapt each written story. Many people get different meanings and thoughts from stories. To determine exactly what one should put into a film is a hard task because of how other people feel about certain characters and the original theme. I think the most important task in a adaptation is to carry over the theme of the text. I believe no film could be a true replication of the text. This is because film and text are different mediums. In text your mind is the director. While in film someone needs to make the important choices of how each character is portrayed. In text the author describes to you how characters act. In film actors conveying how a character is feeling is just as important as the dialogue letting people know what is happening. In the world people use body language to convey thoughts and feelings. If you tried to replicate a text to a film it would not use each medias’ strengths. A film can show you visuals and not need dialogue or narration to explain what is happening. If you don’t cater the story to the media you are using, then what is the point of using that media?
Delete
ReplyDeleteOur understanding of any film adaptation is entirely dependent on our own interpretation. This is very prominent in both articles- as was mentioned in “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation” on page 55, “A novelist’s portrayal of a character as beautiful induces us to imagine the person’s features in our minds.” Where we are pushed to consider the separation of film, depiction, and apprehension. What is beauty, exactly? Perhaps our identity keeps us confined to the only lives we’ve ever known; to find beauty in the constituent parts of day-to-day life. Or perhaps, to put this bluntly, we aren’t as pure as we’d like ourselves to be.
“The Language of Film and Its Relation to the Language of Literature” states on page 44 that “The ability to use, appreciate, and manipulate the language of film, like any language, is enhanced through expanded understanding.” This suggests that film adaptations are dependent on the exegesis of individuals reading the original written work, and are therefore assembling a film through their own interpretation of what they have read. Oftentimes we as interpreters can get so caught up in our own visionary depiction that we forget to be respectful towards all of the hard work someone else has invested. Just because a perspective is different than yours does not solely imply that there can only be one lone shot- a film is comprised of several scenes. One scene cannot exceed the duration of the whole film. Remember that the next time you are under the impression that your interpretation is the only point of view- it is not.
Aside from what we often are led to believe, the outrageous standards we uphold and continue to justify are preventing us from appreciating the integrity of a truly wonderful film. Whether it be in film production, adapting a book into a film, or even beauty standards readers have set unreasonably high for actors portraying their favorite role, we as humans have a tendency to ignore our own bias and accept fault more quickly than we do to simply appreciate the unique production. “But what if the actor who happens to fit the description of Nabokov’s Humbert also happens to be a mediocre actor?” (The Dialogics of Adaptation, page 57). Because mediocrity, the state of being of ordinary or moderate quality, is the medium place. We accept mediocre content and mediocre people once we come to the immediate conclusion that we were wrong. We were wrong about the novel, we were wrong about the film, we were wrong about choosing to believe in these people- mediocrity eats incredible work, mediocrity eats it alive. And this is why it is so crucial to keep an open mind about adaptations- because someone else’s perspective is on the line. It’s always been so strange for me to ponder the meaning of perspective, oftentimes I wonder how many people look at the mailbox and think of what I’m thinking, or read a part in a book and say to themselves “wow, I really relate to this.” Interpretation is a very powerful thing, only sometimes, it lets you see through people- and if you’re unlucky enough, sometimes they might even stare right back.
I agree on the fact that viewers usually place a massive amount of importance on how an adaptation matches up with the images they created while reading the book that would become adapted. I also agree that one must be completely open minded in order to experience an adaptation as it was meant to be experienced. I would, however like to expand on one of your ideas. I believe you are saying that creators are, in their work, “assembling a film through their own interpretation of what they have read.” I think that this can certainly be true, and they can certainly base the filmic adaptation from the images and sounds and worlds that they created in their head as a reader, in the same way that a regular reader would. I also would theorize that many directors base their adaptations off of concepts that they created artistically. This could be true at the micro and macro levels: the color of a dress may be chosen for the purpose of the cinematography, even if it contradicts the directors initial vision. The director also may adjust a major plot point not because they imagined a difference when they read the story, but simply to create an artistically powerful film.
DeleteOne thing that really stood out to me in both readings was stressing the idea that a movie is never going to be an exact copy of a book, in fact it shouldn’t be. I am a very strong believer in not criticizing a movie because it isn’t parallel to the book, but rather how it is different and how that made it interesting. “If we think of a literature-based film as a translation we will come to see that the filmmakers are moving the language of literature–made up of words–into the language of film” (Cahir 14). I had never heard of the term “translation” used to describe a literary adaptation, and I think it fits perfectly. Something in one language, the original text in this case, could mean something completely different in another language, the literary adaptation. The overall theme and meaning will be the same, but there will be unavoidable changes to fit a new format. A film is a completely different entity from a book. “When we say an adaptation has been “unfaithful” to the original, the term gives expression to the disappointment we feel a film adaptation fails to capture what we see as the fundamental narrative, thematic, and aesthetic features of its literary source” (Stam 54). Sometimes our own personal image of a story needs to be disregarded for a little while to truly enjoy a film and recognize its artistry.
ReplyDeleteSomething that “The Dialogics of Adaptation” elaborated on that “Literature into Film” did not is how creative directors can get with films. There is so much freedom to enhance every single aspect of a story to make it come alive as a film. “Although the novelistic character is a verbal artifact, constructed quite literally out of words, the cinematic character is an uncanny amalgam of photogenie, body movement, acting style, and grain of voice, all amplified and molded by lighting, mise-en-scene, and music”(Stam 60). What is seen in an adaptation are all of the things that need to be added in through imagination when reading a piece of work, but they become palpable on screen. They might not be exactly how you imagined them, but undoubtedly will be creative and aimed to make viewers “ooh” and “ah”. Directors’ focuses are to provide entertainment to others, not for themselves. What they have done to fill an adaptation with life is never meant to disappoint you, but grab your attention! Thus, they will amp up every aspect of a story with colors, musics, costumes, sounds, setting, etc.
Another idea that I found extremely important was that it takes a lot more to make a film than it does to make a book. “The demand for fidelity ignores the actual processes of making films–for example, the differences in cost and in modes of production” (Stam 56). Not that making a book isn’t difficult, but there is so much work that goes into making a film. Hundreds of people must be hired for a single movie. There’s makeup, costumes, set design, lighting, casting directors and on and on and on. It takes quite a lot of work to find and pay all these people and all the supplies they need. There is a budget for every film, and a director can only do so much with what he has. Because of this budget, not every single aspect of the book can be included. I think this a very important thing to keep in mind about literary adaptations. Maybe a director would try to make a movie exactly like the book if they had unlimited funds, but they don’t, and they must make the best with what they have.
DeleteI think that, as you said, in movies there are alot of people that go into making the movie that are often forgot about. Hair and makeup, costumes, set design, actor and actresses, and many more.
The people that are behind the movies are often forgot about, and they get the end credits. I find it interesting how you talked about the differences between making a movie and writing a book. I never thought about the price difference of making the two. Also while making a movie you have to pay all of the employees, but while writing it is just the writer and a computer. I like how you describe several of the reasons the book and film are going to be different, like the budget. Another reason the book and film are going to be different is because of the pool of actor and actresses you have coming to an audition. I enjoy how you stated your opinion on whether or not a book should be an exact literal translation. I also believe that a book and movie should not be exact translations. They should be able to stand on their own in different ways. I think that many people often forget that there should be differences between the mediums of telling stories.
I think you made a really good point that making a film is so much harder than writing a book. It’s not only that the film needs much more money and staff, it’s also that the producers of the film will receive plenty of opinions from the audience. If you read a book, you will have your own image of the characters and settings in the book. But when a film tries to interpret a book, the director will use his own picture of the book to select actors and locations. He may change certain scenes; he may change certain lines; he may choose to delete certain characters; he may add some new characters and he may also put his own style into it. Therefore, when even there is a small point in the movie that is different from what the audience have pictured, not only the fans of the book will complain about it, other people who have read the book and have their own image of the book will make some mean comments, too. If they do not like the actors, they complain. If they do not like the acting, they complain. If they do not like the new character, they complain. If they do not like the hair and the makeup, they complain. However, if the film be the exactly same as the movie, the audience will say that it is so boring, and the director is not creative enough. So there are too many aspects that the audience would not be happy about the movie than a book. Therefore, making a film indeed needs much more efforts. That’s why people should respect the filmmakers, staffs behind the scenes and their work while watching the film.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these articles, “Literature into film” and “Film Adaptation” have many dissimilar and similar views. These readings are large and cover many topics of adaptations. Until this I had never read about this before. While reading these I was already able to understand some of the common opinions about film adaptation. Firstly, it is necessary to understand how complicated the topic of film adaptation is. Both readings acknowledge this. I will focus on the points of view that the two readings have in common.
ReplyDeleteThe first theme that is consistent between both articles is the recognition that there are many personal biases about any adaptation. For the most part the writing is always seen as better work then the film. Often this is said without much thought or any objective thinking to back up the opinion. “The book is always better than the movie... This presumption is widespread but it is les a critical determination than a personal bias.” (Cahir 13). “Betrayal… When we loved a book, that an adaptation has not been worthy of that love.” (Stam 54) These two refer to how most people get attached to a book and they believe that the movie is not good enough.
The reason behind the popular opinion that the writing is better than a movie has to do with everyone. Each individual has different minds. Everyone has different opinions and imaginations. The movie that is adapted from a book shows only one way a the book can be adapted. Those who read the book can see the characters, setting, and theme in a totally different way in their heads. Both of the readings understand this as a problem for grading adaptations. “We read a novel through our introjected desires, hopes, and utopias, and as we read we fashion our own imaginary mise-en-scene… When we are confronted with someone else’s phantasy… we feel the loss of our own phantasmatic relation to the novel” (Stam 54-55). “They [the readers] often are disappointed when the movie does not match their concept of what they have read” (Cahir 13). These readings both show why there is a reader bias towards the written work. They both also understand that it is not possible to have an adaptation be exactly like the original writing. Just because it is an adaptation, does that make it automatically different? I think it makes it hard to compare the two.
In The Dialogics of Adaptation, the author discusses how the time period we read the text in has an effect on the way we read and subsequently translate and interpret the texts based on the references we have. An example I can think of that isn’t in the text is how us moderners read ye olde works of Shakespeare. To us, it’s all a big mass of words from yore that we don’t use anymore, but to people in Shakespeare’s time, it was beautiful poetry, comedy, and tragedy. An example from the text is as follows: “References obvious to eighteenth century readers if Robinson Crusoe are not necessarily obvious to twentieth century readers… At the same time, certain features of Defoe’s hero, such as his misogyny and latent homoeroticism, might be more visible to present-day then to eighteenth century readers…” Taking this into account, a film made based on Robinson Crusoe now might—and probably would—look completely different than one made closer to the time of its creation, as the newer adaptation may choose to take a closer look at some of those themes only apparent now.
ReplyDeleteOn page 60, the text references film having an advantage over literature because of the rift a director can create between music and the visual image. “For example. Kubrick’s underscoring of the opening shot of nuclear bombers, in Dr. Strangelove, with the instrumental version of ‘Try a Little Tenderness.’” I’m not sure what the overall goal was there, but I went and watched that opening credits scene, and it felt a little bit unsettling, which a book could not achieve in the same way.
The Language of Film and Literature didn’t address Paratextuality as The Dialogics of Adaptation did. It’s really interesting how even a book jacket or a signature, or a movie quote or remark from a director, can be wrapped into the universe of that work and “become virtually indistinguishable from it.” We remember movies as their posters, and books as their covers to a large degree, and we remember the movie characters as the actors. Think Mean Girls: think Lindsay Lohan. Think Breaking Bad: think Bryan Cranston. Think Bridesmaids: think the unstoppable group of Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Melissa McCarthy, and Kristen Wiig. I could go on, but I won’t. Everything about a movie, even a review we once read, can factor into our understanding and interpretation, making some aspects of film completely out of director control.
I agree with your point that the texts in other time period will be interpreted and translated based our references. Since Chinese has 5000 years of history, the Chinese characters and words have been changing during such a long time of period. Compare to now, the same character can have a completely meaning, and the sentence structures can be very different, too. So when we read the books or articles from that time, we would not understand anything unless there are translations for the words. Nowadays, TV shows, dramas and films about ancient times have been very popular in China. But instead of using the ancient language, the producers choose to use the language that we use now, so it would be much easier for the audience to understand. However, they will keep certain special characteristics at that time in their work. For example, the names the empires or the kings call themselves. In the ancient time, the empires and kings always call themselves “wu” or “zhen”. So when they want to say “I...”, they always start the sentence with “zhen...” or “wu...”. But this would not confuse the audience because it is a common knowledge for us. But they will try to keep the costume and the makeup to be exactly same like that time as possible.
DeleteThe time in which a film is made is indeed a determining factor of how the film is made and what it draws from the original text. Preceding approaches have different methodological ideologies of how to make the film and what themes to implement within them based on preceding decades and their inspirations before them. There are many films that you can look at and infer when they were made, perhaps based on how it may looks, but more so the global ideas and the current “in the now,” at the time, of their representations/messages/themes. For example, if someone were to make a film about WWII during the war, which did happen, its philosophical ideas would differ from that of a film made about the war now would. That gap of time and different collective knowledge makes way for different perspectives and judgments on the universal topic. Look at propaganda films, they are designed on a foundation of a contemporary initiative that infuse, obviously or subtlety, some sort of social/political undertones. Time may differentiate different themes in a given story and use them differently, if at all, to make a film that is fitting for the time.
DeleteI agree with the fact that there are a lot of things about a movie that are out of control of the adaptation. We instantly compare the book with the movie even before the movie is made. We expect the writing to be ruined by the film. A movie will never satisfy everyone. While in many cases the adaptation is the main perceived flaw, that isnt always the case. There are many times when the directing is not the main problem. Often in low budget films acting can be a difference. Also the things that you mentioned like the score and posters. I had never before thought about how our environment shapes how we view movies before. I think that it is true and would be important for certain movies in certain places. For example Black Panther was really popular among the African American community in the U.S.. This definitely made it more popular in urban areas. A movie about rural farming may not have the same effect. I think that there is a lot to do with a movie and an adaptation can not be put only on the director. There have been many good and bad adaptations and there should be a better way to judge them.
Delete
ReplyDeleteBoth readings talked about how a director can be loyal to the text. In the reading, Literature into Film, the author said, “The question is not that of the translations faithfulness, but of its faithfulness to what?”(15) This talks about whose vision is the film faithful to. It may not be your translation of the text, but it is someone’s translation of the text. The director’s vision is what is shown on the screen. When reading a text you create your own ideas of what each character looks like and how the story is represented.
In the reading, Film Adaptations, they use “Words such as infidelity and betrayal… that an adaptation that has not been worthy of that love.”.(54) In text we can pick and choose what we want each thing to be represented as. This is why people have passionate responses when a film is not represented the way one thought it should be. People can say a director betrayed the story, but that was just their vision of how the story should be represented.
Film Adaptations brought up an interesting point. “Although a novel can be written on napkins in prison… the filmmaker requires substantial funding in order to stage a simulacral Paris to dress the actors in period costume, and so forth.”(56) Not only can a text be written with little to no budget the boundaries of ideas are vast as the brain will take you. But with film you are limited by budget, ability to create the scene, and studios willingness to go along with an idea. Many ideas may have to be watered down or the directors pure vision may need to be changed to make the film plausible. This may change the film away from the original text. Outside pressures may make the director change his vision for the film while in books and short stories these pressures are much lower or nonexistent. One just needs to get someone to publish the story. The reading, Literature Into Film, does not touch on this subject.
In Literature Into Film it declares, “Stream of consciousness assembles free associations, physiological conjunctions of words, and psychic impressions.”.(53) This is really intriguing, that our minds automatically connects subliminal messages to themes. Even without directly thinking about what is the feel of the text or film we understand it on a subconscious level. This happens to me when there is intense music in a film. It heightens the tension so much that you are on the edge of your seat with anticipation. These subconscious connections really help separate a good story from a great story. It does not matter the medium.
For the most part, “The Dialogics of Adaptation” delves deeper into its subjects than “The Language of Film and Literature.” Therefore, there are a few places in which “Dialogics” addresses something which “Language” nearly reaches but doesn’t quite address.
ReplyDelete“Dialogics” uses Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove as an example of the multiplicity of film: “Kubrick’s underscoring of the opening shot of nuclear bombers, in Dr. Strangelove, with the instrumental version of ‘Try a Little Tenderness’ … The cinema offers possibilities of disunity and disjunction not immediately available to the novel” (60). A main focus of “Language” was the extended metaphor of film as literature. While “Dialogics” considers this multiplicity as a filmic singularity, “Language”, had it delved just a bit further into the metaphor, would likely have equated the multiple “tracks” of film (image, editing, soundtrack, dubbing) with the multiplicities of language and literature: If Dr. Strangelove had been a literal translation of some text, that text may have begun with the description of falling bombs, but with syntax and word choice representing a feeling of contentedness. Although--as “Dialogics” claims--the multitrack nature of film allows for a greater range in the world of simultaneous contradiction, it is not a unique artistic possibility, only a significant extension of language’s ability for simultaneous contrast.
The two readings begin with the same commentary: The general public’s disdain for filmic “versions” of literature is based off of the fallacious idea that a film’s purpose is to be faithful to the original text. In “Dialogics”, this is referred to as “fidelity.” “Language” addresses this by saying that any translation “simply cannot recreate, in a different language, every aspect of the parent text” (15), especially because the reader of the text creates expectations for the imagery he/she will see in the film. “Dialogics” addresses the psychology of being faithful to the original author: “Authors are sometimes not even aware of their own deepest intentions. How, then, can filmmakers be faithful to them? And to what authorial instance is one to be faithful?” (58). The writer goes on to hammer in the point that faithfulness is a false idol by listing five different, broad subjects to which the director could be faithful. Where “Language” takes the shallow dive, addressing only the relationship between the reader and the director, “Dialogics” goes to the deep end, addressing the relationships between the reader, director, author, and the author’s subconscious.