Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain linda hutcheons theory of adaptation
Adaptation theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Explain linda hutcheons theory of adaptation
Linda Hutcheon argues that adaptations are often considered as second-line art forms, since they are always originated from other pieces of arts, hence critics and reviewers usually compare these works with the original ones. When people talk about adaptations, most of the time they think about literary texts like a novel or short story being remade as a big screen movie, or a television show and opinions are usually that these remade stories are less in value, then the original ones, although there are other forms of art, like ballet, or opera which are less attacked by public opinion. This might be because, people tend to think about texts like novels and such superior to any other art form because of it is among the first ones of their kind, and it lets the reader to use their imagination and create a world of their own, while movies take this experience away from the viewer. The reason of the popularity of adaptations nowadays might be explained with financial facts. It is simply because if something made profit and was popular once, there is a high possibility of it will do the...
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.?
The term ‘stress’ was generally thought to have been a concept created by Robert Hooke in the 17th century. He worked on the design of physical structures, such as bridges; his concept of stress came from how much pressure a structure could withstand. However, Lazarus (1993) pointed out that the term ‘stress’ has been used as far back as the 14th century, when it meant hardship or adversity. Back then it referred to the external stressor, such as the death of a spouse or financial worry; in the 20th century, there are many different schools of thought on this area. Hans Selye (1956), brought together the work of Cannon and Bernard and devised a comprehensive system of physiological stress; which he termed the ‘General Adaptation Syndrome’, and is a 3-stage process. He theorised that a certain level of stress called ‘eustress’ (Cox, 1978) could actually be beneficial to our overall performance. Later In 1976, Cox & Mackay devised another model called the ‘Transactional model’. This model takes into account the individual differences in the perception of the amount of stress experienced by the person. The main difference between these two models is that Selye’s model only accounts for the physiological side of stress, whereas Cox’s model takes into account both the physiological and psychological aspects of stress. Therefore, both models will have slight similarities and differences in their explanation for how stress occurs in individuals, which is the main focus of this essay.
Phillips, Gene D. Conrad and Cinema: The Art of Adaptation. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1995.
A noticeable difference in the way movies have changed over the years is evident when comparing and contrasting two films of different eras which belong to the same genre and contain the same subject matter. Two vampire movies, Dracula and Bram Stoker's Dracula, present an interesting example of this type of study.
In Hollywood today, most films can be categorized according to the genre system. There are action films, horror flicks, Westerns, comedies and the likes. On a broader scope, films are often separated into two categories: Hollywood films, and independent or foreign ‘art house’ films. Yet, this outlook, albeit superficial, was how many viewed films. Celebrity-packed blockbusters filled with action and drama, with the use of seamless top-of-the-line digital editing and special effects were considered ‘Hollywood films’. Films where unconventional themes like existentialism or paranoia, often with excessive violence or sex or a combination of both, with obvious attempts to displace its audiences from the film were often attributed with the generic label of ‘foreign’ or ‘art house’ cinema.
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.
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.
...ctual roles, or adding in exciting events that revise the storyline. These changes are beneficial to producers because they engage a large audience and generate massive profits. In contrast, they do not always have a positive effect on viewers. Although they are entertaining which is an important aspect of theatre culture, they also are often misguiding. Many spectators take movies at face value, without considering that they may not exactly qualify as primary source material. Even when an historical event is fabricated to teach or enhance a moral message, it still doesn’t compensate for bending the truth. Moviegoer’s may have a positive experience and gain some skewed historical perspective, perhaps better than what they knew before the movie, but they loose out on the truth and therefore, a genuine understanding of the historical event, and its significance.
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.
This article starts off by identifying the relationship between adaption and transfiguration. Johnson introduces the idea that film adaptions are not meant to be exact replicas
Gullivers Travels Comparison Between Book and Movie It is common in today's media-driven society to reach into the past for inspiration and ideas. A trend has developed where original works are transformed into other mediums. For example: books are turned into movies and/or plays, movies are turned into weekly sitcoms, and cartoons will spawn empires (Disney). These things happen so often that an audience rarely stops to question the level of authenticity that remains after these conversions. Perhaps it is only when a project is not well received that people begin to think of the difficulties involved with changing a work's genre.
It seems like every year Hollywood does a motion picture interpretation of a novel and although the movie may become a box office hit, the novel will always be much more detailed and in depth. Movie producers and directors try to fit an entire book filled with the tiniest of details into approximately an hour and thirty minutes of entertainment, therefore are forced to cut out many important details. For instance, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” a children’s literature novel written by J.K. Rowling was transferred to the big screen in 2001. Though the movie stayed “…surprisingly faithful to the novel,” according to Roger Ebert, it still lacked some major details that contributed to building the magical world of “Harry Potter.”
In The Genetic Theory of Adaptation: A Brief History by H. Allen Orr the article discusses adaptation and how it was affected by micromutationism, phenotypic evolution, and sequence evolution and various models that arose through the years. Prior to getting into detail the article explains that “adaptation is not natural selection,” as emphasized in the 1930s by Ronald A. Fisher (Orr 1). It glosses over how evolutionary geneticists define and distinguish between the two terms and how the recent models on adaptation characterize evolutional patterns and fitness.
Adaptation of any kind has been a debate for many years. The debate on cinematic adaptations of literary works was for many years dominated by the questions of fidelity to the source and by the tendencies to prioritize the literary originals over their film versions (Whelehan, 2006). In the transference of a story from one form to another, there is the basic question of adherence to the source, of what can be lost (Stibetiu, 2001). There is also the question of what the filmmakers are being faithful to or is it the novel’s plot in every detail or the spirit of the original (Smith, 2016). These are only few query on the issue of fidelity in the film adaptation.