Adaptation is a very old “art.” For instance, most performances in medieval theatre were adapted from the Bible; as Hutcheon (2006: 2) writes even Shakespeare transferred his works to stage so that more people could learn about them. But the definition of an adaptation, as we use it today, was developed in the twentieth century, and even so, critics are still arguing about its ultimate definition. Adaptation studies have a wide nature and nowadays they are interdisciplinary, as they represent “a dynamic convergence of diverse academic disciplines, from film, literature, history, languages, creative writing, media, music, drama, performance art, visual art, and new media” (Griggs 2016: 1).Since film adaptations of novels are considered to be …show more content…
Dudley Andrew presents a similar definition explaining that an important feature of adaptation is “the matching of the cinematic sign system to a prior achievement in some other system” (qtd. in McFarlane 1996: 21). Both these definitions focus on the process of transferring a set of signs from one medium to another. The main difference between these definitions is that McFarlane suggests that elements from a novel are transferred into a film as absolutely different elements, while Andrew alleges that these elements are two systems which are consistent with each other. Nevertheless, there is an idea of transforming main elements from a “source” to a new product, which is definitely different in its …show more content…
Nevertheless, there are also some critical but still influential notions as one of George Bluestone. In 1957 he wrote a prominent book Novels into Film in which he writes that “[t]he film and the novel remain separate institutions...As long as the cinema remains as omnivorous as it is for story material, its dependence on literature will continue” (qtd. in DiPaolo 2007: 12). It changes a view of adaptation and so adaptations and original novels are not the same, and films depend on literature
Sometimes in movie production a film is developed from a piece of literature. Directors will use the plot of a book either to create a unique movie, or to give the audience a chance to see what their favorite book is like when acted out on the screen. Willa Cather's "Paul's Case" is a good example of a work adapted to video. The movie has slight differences from the book, but the director Lamont Johnson follows the original closely.
No society remains immobile, even if some human beings resist changes. Advances in technology and the emergence of new beliefs allow people to have a broader imagination. Thus, numerous new interpretations of ancient works, whether they are plays, folktales, or poems, permeate around the world. These renditions re-tell the original stories in contexts that adjust to the modern world. What was considered serious in the past becomes mockery nowadays.
Many time in our lives, we have seen the transformation of novels into movies. Some of them are equal to the novel, few are superior, and most are inferior. Why is this? Why is it that a story that was surely to be one of the best written stories ever, could turn out to be Hollywood flops? One reason is that in many transformations, the main characters are changed, some the way they look, others the way they act. On top of this, scenes are cut out and plot is even changed. In this essay, I will discuss some of the changes made to the characters of the Maltese Falcon as they make their transformation to the ?big screen.?
Filmmaking and cinematography are art forms completely open to interpretation in a myriad ways: frame composition, lighting, casting, camera angles, shot length, etc. The truly talented filmmaker employs every tool available to make a film communicate to the viewer on different levels, including social and emotional. When a filmmaker chooses to undertake an adaptation of a literary classic, the choices become somewhat more limited. In order to be true to the integrity of the piece of literature, the artistic team making the adaptation must be careful to communicate what is believed was intended by the writer. When the literature being adapted is a play originally intended for the stage, the task is perhaps simplified. Playwrights, unlike novelists, include some stage direction and other instructions regarding the visual aspect of the story. In this sense, the filmmaker has a strong basis for adapting a play to the big screen.
Hollywood in known for making literary adaptations, and such adaptations will exploit context. Movies bring literary properties to the public that otherwise would not bother to read them. However the "marriage" of literature and film holds their own separate qualities.
A movie-adaptation is the transfer of a written work. The most common form of a movie-adaptation is the use of a novel, such as the book "Persepolis", written by Marjane Satrapi, written as a childhood memoir. The story is about a young Marjane growing up in Iran during the Shah dynasty, Iranian Revolution, and Iran-Iraq war during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Not only did Marjane Satrapi wrote the novel, but she also directed the film about the book. Sadly, the work of a movie-adaptation doesn't always include every details mentioned and sometimes add details not included from the text, which includes Persepolis the movie. The author omitted several events from the movie that happened in the book, including the whole first chapter of the novel. Overall, I enjoyed the novel more than the movie, because the movie omitted scenes from the book and it was less accurate from the text.
Philip K. Dick is one of the more prolific science fiction writers of the second half of the 20th century. His dark plots, themes, and characterizations differ greatly from those who preceded him. This has seemingly translated well onto the big screen, as at last count, nearly ten of his novels and short stories have been adapted into films. Several of these films have garnered critical acclaim for both their movie credentials and use of source material. Blade Runner, originally released in 1982 and based off a 1968 novel entitled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? along with A Scanner Darkly, a 2006 film based off a book of the same name released in 1977, are two such examples. They provide an excellent base to compare the adaptations in terms of visual style, plot authenticity, and characterization. Both movies took alternate routes, yet both were very well received, though one’s financial success is far greater than the other.
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter is one of the most respected and admired novels of all time. Often criticized for lacking substance and using more elaborate camera work, freely adapted films usually do not follow the original plot line. Following this cliché, Roland Joffe’s version of The Scarlet Letter received an overwhelmingly negative reception. Unrealistic plots and actions are added to the films for added drama; for example, Hester is about to be killed up on the scaffold, when Algonquin members arrive and rescue her. After close analysis, it becomes evident of the amount of work that is put into each, but one must ask, why has the director adapted their own style of depicting the story? How has the story of Hester Prynne been modified? Regarding works, major differences and similarities between the characterization, visual imagery, symbolism, narration and plot, shows how free adaptation is the correct term used.
From a structural perspective, movies and novels appear as polar opposites. A film uses actors, scripts, and a set in order to create a visual that can grab and keep the attention of their viewers. However, an author strives to incorporate deeper meaning into their books. Despite these differences in media, 1984 and The Hunger Games present unique, yet similar ideas.
Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.
Phillips, W. (2002). Thinking about film . In Film an introduction (pp. 403-438). Boston : Bedford/St.Martin's .
Arnheim’s body of theory suggests that the necessity of human intervention to implement plot, tropes, and culturally legible symbols raises a film to a higher level than a mere copy of reality, and that this interpretation and expression of meaning is “a question of feeling” or intuition on the part of the filmmaker. (“Film Theory and Criticism” 283) One consequence of effective directorial intervention is that differences in speed, stops and starts, and what would otherwise be jarring gaps in continuity can be accepted by viewers, because if the essentials of reality are present, th...
It’s pretty clear that film and literature are very different mediums and when you try to make one into the other, such as an adaptation, you’re going to have some things that are lost in translation and seen in a different light. When an original work is made into a movie, I think they’re kind of at a disadvantage because they only have a few hours to get the whole story across while also keeping the viewer intrigued by what is taking place on the screen right in front of their eyes. Movies are able to contain special effects, visuals, and music though which can impact a viewer and make a scene stay in their mind longer which is a plus side to being able to view something. Literature on the other hand, has a greater advantage. They can keep the reader entertained for a considerably long time and you’re able to get more information about people and events such as what a character is thinking or what is happening behind the scenes during a specific event. I understand that people are going to have different opinions when it comes to whether a book or film adaptation of a work is the best and it is not always going to be the same for each and every piece of work. One thing I think though, is that The Namesake in both the film and the movie, they’re both accurate and concise in the way that they relate to one another.
How does it feel starting over in a completely new place? In the movie “The Karate Kid”, Daniel, the main character, and his mom moved to the California from New Jersey because of his mom’s new job offer. Daniel started going to school in California and met a girl named Ali, whom he started to like. He started going out with her. Daniel was getting beat up by some bullies; one of them was Ali’s ex-boyfriend. They knew karate very well, but Daniel did not. So Daniel decided to learn karate. Daniel and his mom were living in an apartment and one day he discovers that the handyman at his apartment, Mr.Miyagi, knows karate very well. He asked Mr.Miyagi to teach him karate, and Mr.Miyagi became his karate teacher. It was hard for him to make new friends in a new place and he believed that Mr.Miyagi would be the only best friend he ever met.
The first chapter of George Bluestone’s book Novels into Film starts to point out the basic differences that exist between the written word and the visual picture. It is in the chapter "Limits of the Novel and Limits of the Film," that Bluestone attempts to theorize on the things that shape the movie/film from a work of literature. Film and literature appear to share so much, but in the process of changing a work into film, he states important changes are unavoidable. It is the reasoning behind these changes that Bluestone directs his focus, which is the basis behind the change. He starts to look at the nature of film and literature, as a crucial part in the breakdown of this problem. It is only through a discussion into nature of each of these, that Bluestone can discover where film and literature seperate, and also develop a close to accurate theory on the laws that direct the course of change from novel to film.