Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Literary analysis
When discussing the writing of screenplays, regardless of genre, they can be broken into two different categories: original and adaptations. With screenplays that are adaptations, their faithfulness to their literary source is divided into three degrees: loose, faithful, and literal. Audience members that are fans of the original literary source often dislike loose adaptation, because directors stray so far from the original piece.
Furthermore, fans of original novels often think they want a literal film adaptation of the piece, until they actually get one. Take me for instance, I am a huge fan of the Harry Potter franchise and always was always pleased with the way they portray the series on screen. I would argue that all the films within the series follow a faithful adaptation by always including the main events and leaving out the tedious details, resulting in a worthwhile film. There is one exception to this; David Yates’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One. I believe this film, unlike all the others, followed an extreme literal adaptation. The movie dragged on and on and it really just seemed like a two-hour long trailer for Part Two. At the same time, it was a good movie, but I feel like it would have been better, had they added some extra action-packed events. On the contrary, Yates did do what the fans of the franchise had been requesting for almost ten years; he followed J.K. Rowling’s novel to a perfect tee, by literally making you feel like you were watching these characters backpack through the woods for nine months as they did the novel.
The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. The amateurish style of the book gives it some appeal as a more sleek and sophisticated style wouldn’t evoke a sense of angst’ desperation and confusion that the novel does.
Many novels are transcribed from their original texts to films. Some of the movies are similar to the original plots, others do not follow the authors work. Alice Hoffman’s novel Practical Magic is altered when it is made into a movie; and Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible which was also made into a movie, was extremely similar to his original writing. There are multiple variables that account for how a movie is made some of them include; the amount of income, how much can be changed, and the author’s approval. The two recreations previously mentioned, have two completely different outcomes, the results all depend on the amount of creative licensing the movie company has.
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
Have you ever watched a movie and been dissatisfied, because it was not similar to its book? There are multiple movies that seem as if they are their own story, for they don't resemble their book at all. For example, “The Pit and the Pendulum.” by Edgar Allen Poe. He, himself would not approve of the film that follows his story. For one thing, the storyline was no where near to being like his book. Another reasoning is that he wrote based of one man not multiple people. And finally, he wouldn’t of approved of the art on the walls in the room with the pit and pendulum. These are the reasonings of why Poe would not appreciate the film.
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
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.
When novels are adapted for the cinema, directors and writers frequently make changes in the plot, setting, characterization and themes of the novel. Sometimes the changes are made in adaptations due to the distinctive interpretations of the novel, which involve personal views of the book and choices of elements to retain, reproduce, change or leave out. On the contrary, a film is not just an illustrated version of the novel; it is a totally different medium. When adapting the novel, the director has to leave out a number of things for the simple reason of time difference. Furthermore, other structures and techniques must be added to the film to enhance the beauty and impressions of it. Like a translator, the director wants to do some sort of fidelity to the original work and also create a new work of art in a different medium. Regardless of the differences in the two media, they also share a number of elements: they each tell stories about characters.
Why do directors choose to stay faithful to or depart from a text when they are producing a film? Many directors choose to either alter or maintain literary elements such as characters, plot, and resolution from a text. The presence or lack of these specific features affects the audience. For instance, in the story “The Monkey’s Paw”, a classic short horror story written by W.W. Jacobs, and its accompanying film, the similarities and differences in the characters, plot, and resolution have an effect on the readers and viewers.
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.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
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.
That in the end is the true measure of The Goblet of Fire. For all its dull moments - and, at more than 150 minutes, there are quite a few stretches when it feels as we're merely biding time until another ugly episode - it isn't the kind of film that will appeal only to fans of the book. Of course, it should have featured a lot more of the deliciously serpentine Alan Rickman, and it should certainly have given much more screen time to Jarvis Cocker; he is, after all, the patron saint of exactly the same kind of misfits, outsiders and misshapes represented by Potter
Imagine if your work was to be published, but the publishers required you to change even the most minute detail to fit their need. This work would be unrecognizable, not at all what you wanted to convey with your story. This is essentially what happens with every movie adaptation of a popular novel, and readers are always enraged. One such case is The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak, which was unnecessarily changed. The lack of many important details in the movie adaptation of The Book Thief shows how obvious it is that movies must stay true to the book for full effect.
When adapting a novel, there are three different ways directors can translate that into a film. They may take on the literal, traditional or radical interpretation of their adaptation of the novel; in Joe Wright’s 2005 Pride and Prejudice, he takes on the traditional interpretation. This translation demonstrates the same ideas, central conflicts, and characters as those of Austen’s novel 1813 novel, Pride and Prejudice. Linda Costanzo Cahir, the author of Literature into Film, gives sufficient evidence to prove that this adaptation is in fact a traditional one.
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.